Nice to see the Warwick featured. An old friend (Kim Siddorn), now sadly lost to prostate cancer, was a collector and restorer of stationary engines. Amongst his collection was an ultra rare Scott 2 stroke marine engine out of exactly one of those type lifeboats in this video. It was a water cooled sealed unit with fuel for 1000 miles. He also had a Vellocette stationary engine out of a Sunderland flying boat. This was mounted in between the starboard inner and outer engines in the leading edge of the wing and was used to start the starboard inner engine when the aircraft was away from base, that engine then being used to start the other engines. Both the Scott and the Vellocette engines were complete and in full running order. I'm fairly sure both engines are now at the museum at the former RAF Manston airfield.
They would be quite fascinating pieces. Very interesting. Sad to hear that he has passed (RIP), but at least these very rare pieces are being looked after in a museum
Thanks. It is interesting how aviation history is littered with aircraft which for various reasons never quite made it. Usually because the original requirements behind it had changed or that by the time it was ready the world had moved on.
@@bigblue6917 Yeah that's fair. I'm similar. It's only because of these videos do I tend to dig deeper (depending on the aircraft). I learn alot from making these videos, and it's great. 👍✈
So, quite a diverse career by the standards of the day. Seems like it was a versatile and useful aeroplane that happened to be eclipsed by events and a switch to four-engined types. Great video! 👍🏻
Yes it had quite a diverse career. It was able to fulfil important secondary roles. Indeed, the only reason it was unsuccessful was due to the need for it disappearing. Thanks 👍✈️
While it may have failed as a bomber the aircraft built still provided valuable service as transports and with Coastal Command. Even the B-18 Bolo in USAAF service provided useful service as anti submarine patrol aircraft.
I believe the standard of naming Vickers aircraft after British towns included the use of towns starting with the same letter as the designer. Hence the Warwick and Wellington were designed by Barnes Wallis.
RAF St Evil made me spit out my tea. I think you'll find it's pronounced St E-val. It's a bit harsh calling the Warwick a failure because its role had been taken away from it even though it was still capable of carrying it's designed role.
Sorry about that. I try my best to pronounce everything right, but there is usually one or two I can't quite get. Thanks for the pick up. I wouldn't call it a failure, but I also don't think it was an overly successful design. You're right it never got the chance as a bomber, but by what I've read its handling characteristics weren't great. It fulfilled other roles (i.e. transportation and air-sea rescue) decently. I guess the point I was trying to go for was that it wasn't a particularly special aircraft.
@@AntiqueAirshow don't worry about it. At least this time it was humourous. British place names can be a nightmare because we have Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Viking and then Nornan names. And then we have places vames that deny pronunciation such as Wymondham which is pronounced as Windham.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 They can be quite interesting. Most of the time they are alright, but every so often one or two catches me off guard. Hahaha, being from Australia we have plenty of places that defy the rules of pronunciation.
My understanding is no. The Lancaster was more or less a development of the Manchester where as the Wellington and Warwick were somewhat separate designs, built alongside each other. Probably more similar to the relationship between the Beaufort and Beaufighter. Built sharing many common features to enable quick switching during manufacturing. That's my understanding of it, hope that helps 👍✈️
This was the first time I've heard of an American engine being fitted to a British aircraft - pretty neat. Does anyone know of other examples, excluding aircraft like the Tomahawk?
I feel like there may be one or two more, but can't think of any off the top of my head. A version of the Short Stirling was designed to have Pratt & Whitney engines although it never went into production.
@@AntiqueAirshow The Bristol Beaufort springs to mind. 176 British Built with Pratt and Whitney Twin Wasp radials. 700 Australian built likewise with Pratt and Whitneys. Australian built aircraft replaced rifle calibre machine guns with .50 calibre brownings.
@@secretaryharpsoctas4950 That is very true, how could I forget. The Australian built Bristol Beaufighter would also be another example. The Australian built Beaufighters were quite the fighting machine.
@@AntiqueAirshow You're right about the Australian built Beaufighters being a formidable aircraft. They also replaced the .303 machine guns with .50 calibre brownings. A recognition feature on the DAP ( Department of Aircraft Production ) Beaufighters was a bulge in front of the pilot which housed a Sperry autopilot. DAP / Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation became the Government Aircraft Factory near Melbourne which built Sabres, Canberras, Hornets, Nomads and other types.
And as always..ENGINES were a big part of the problem. Maddening...but predictable I suppose. I suspect those who were saved by equipment/ lifeboats dropped from Warwicks would disagree with the "not very succesful" label!
The R-2800 was the most reliable performance engine of WWII. It’s too bad this great aircraft didn’t continue using it for its main power plant. It could be still flying because of its superior reliability. It could have morphed into the USNavy P-2 serving the RAF and USN. Lost opportunity!
To me, two engines don't say 'heavy' bomber. Heav/ier/ than current bombers maybe and probably what the specification should have said, but the later four engined types were the only true /heavy/ bombers. Two engined types were medium bombers. That being said the Warwick was probably in the same class as the Manchester, 'good but no cigar'.
Perhaps, but having two similar designs made it easier to manufacture the two as they could easily switch back and forth. Also, when in service it was easier for squadrons to switch between types.
@@AntiqueAirshow What an incredible aircraft industry we had in those days. Nowadays, we have to collaborate with several nations just to hang on to one homegrown fighter.
I thought of myself as well-informed about the aircraft of the RAF, but until now, I had never heard of this one. Thank you so very much for informing me of something new!
