The Vickers Windsor; Wimpey’s Big Brother 

Always a measure mate. Maybe have a crack at building one :)

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters might have to see if there is a kit somewhere 🤞🏻

@@ModelMinutes I guess it's not exactly a surprise you're subscribed over here too

@@christopher5723 nope, not a surprise 😂, although Ed and I did collaborate on a video a while ago

Really?!

Yes it's called UGLY , as hell !

Form follows function though that tail fin looks weird and who knows why the designers built a single pilot seat.

@@davidelliott5843 The initial prototype design for the B52 was set up the same way, with tandem seating for the pilot and co-pilot. Like an enlarged B47.

The same can be said about domd of the products of every nation's aircraft designers.

​@@davidelliott5843 single seat was driven by the pressurisation requirement and was quite common in the 1940s and early 1950s. The B-29 was one of those that bucked the trend.

A British license-built Dominator - now that would have been very interesting.

More than welcome John :)

Seems like you are the one with the problem. Get help!

I had never heard of this process before. Absolutely fascinating. I have now got this vision of vickers calling in a piano tuner before a plane rolls out of the door.

Hope you find it interesting :)

Cheers Aaron.

That vertical stabiliser in fact is very effective and modern.

That was the six-engined ‘Victory’ bomber, designed by Wallis to drop the 22,000lb ‘earthquake’ bomb from around 40,000ft, the height Wallis felt ideal for maximum effect. It got as far as a wooden wind-tunnel model that I think is on display at The Brooklands Museum & very attractive it is too. It was rejected as a bit of a one-trick pony that would take too long to develop when the four engined bombers were just coming on stream & there was little surplus production capacity to work on something so advanced. I also wonder how it would have hit the very precise targets intended for it from that height given the problems that, for example, the Americans had with their Norden bombsight that worked perfectly in clear blue skies but fared less well when faced with the amount of cloud cover common over European targets. In the final reckoning, the first 22,000lb Grand Slam was dropped by a 617 Lancaster on the Bielefeld Viaduct from just 12,000ft & successfully made a right mess of the target. Even when further modified Lancs were used, they struggled to reach 20,000ft but were nevertheless highly successful. In the end, the Victory bomber was too specialised & the RAF, as is so often the case, did the best they could with the equipment they had ~ & frequently surpassed expectations.

@@davidpope3943great reply

@@davidpope3943 I believe the RAF finally managed the capability to drop the Grand Slam from a much greater height by strapping a couple underneath a modified 'Washington' - a later mark of the B29... obviously (thankfully) it was never needed to be used.

But the B29 cost 50% more than the Manhattan project to put into service and Britain just couldn't afford that sort of spending.

Handsome, ok ....... it's rudder and stabilizer are 100 % beyond choke and puke 🤮 ......alot of British aircraft look beautiful...... it's as if they put ever effort in creating such great aircraft , but when it come to the "tail section " it's as if they giving up and said" F it " . And not just this craft most of them . Pay close intention to most of there aircraft the "mosquitoes" for instance , there gorgeous but that tail section is butt FN ugly ,well it's there so why not make them more sleek and flowing with it's fuselage. Just saying my opinion.

@@seanconservativeburke Pretty sure utility was on the aircraft designers mind more then a beauty contest..🤷‍♂️

Yes, of course the B29 was an incredible machine for the time, but realistically only the US could've produced such an aircraft at that time due their extreme economic and industrial capacity, not to mention huge population and talent pool.

The Windsor and Wellington are indeed 'basket cases' - but the Mosquito's tail fin - like most De Havillands is exquisite! I think you are just tuned in to modern jet type tails and can't see the different design philosophy of that era. Boy, that Windsor tail is grotesque though.

Waste not, want not! 😉

One would hope that he had been briefed!

All they have to do is scare it off, not kill it.

@@sugarnads exactly why they kept the 4x .303 rear turrets as long as they did, and why they had much simpler sights than those on us day bombers. The British turret was ideal for rapidly getting rounds near or prefer ably on target and producing a fountain of tracer flying at the night fighter, which along with the larger number of hits (even if of minimal actual threat) makes the 4x 303s seem much scarier and often making night fighter pilots lose their nerve

@@christopher5723 RAF night bombers used reflector gun sights and the day bombers the same. Both gained gyroscopic options later in the war, but not the ballistic (drop) compensation that US turrets gained. But radar targeting was added, as also to some B-29s for the tail. In the dark it proved a mixed blessing, including attracting night fighters and some friendly fire instances.

@@christopher5723 in terms of keeping 4. 303, that was down to Beaverbrook cancelling a number of projects for 50 and even 20mm turrets in 1939 to concentrate on production of existing designs to ensure there were SOME turrets and then a slow restart to 50 calibre turret efforts. Harris was livid as from 1942 he wanted 50 calibre turrets for night use as they hit so much harder than 4 303s.

@@wbertie2604 yes they both used reflector gunsights, but the RAF's were much more basic, but with the closer engagement ranges at night that simplicity was an advantage in that particular environment. Yes late war some raf aircraft did get the village inn gunnery radar, often with the twin .50 rose turret which could take advantage of the longer detection range. Gunnery radar would go a long way to making up for the faults with the gun installation as designed on the windsor.

Massive, isnt it? Apparently the roll rate on the aircraft was excellent... I wouldnt fancy trying it though...😬

So many of those bombers had too little fin-area (such as the Halifax and B-17): it took fatal accidents to get things right.

That could be said about a number of aircraft. Westland Welkin, Hughes XF-11, Martin P6M SeaMaster and others. But it's like museum ships. Not everything can be saved.

@@mpetersen6 Unfortunately so sir.