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. Feel free to leave you questions below - I may not be able to answer all of them, but I will keep my eyes open :)
@@mikepette4422 as a proud Englishman. I disagree. Though imperial measures served us well, much as living in caves did. The success that made this country great, from the reformation to the industrial Revolution, were about embracing something better than that which came before. Metric may have been brought into the mainstream by that dasterdly imp, Bonaparte. But it is of course the correct system of measurement in the modern world. I really hope a proper history nerd gets all the double entendre in this post
As always, very interesting. But I'm getting increasingly confused by the large number of aircraft manufacturers! How about a video one day that looks at the industry as a whole between the wars? How many builders were there, how did they fare, what rivalries were there, was there much consolidation during that time, etc. Maybe some analysis of what happened during and after the war too? (Or maybe that's another video!) I'd also be very interested in a general overview of technical developments, aircraft design, production methods, etc during the same period. I'm not really that knowlerdgeable about aircraft development, but it seems to me that the industry went from more or less the Wright age before WW1 to pretty much the modern era by the end of WW2, so this period, was possibly the most crucial for aircraft design and development - certainly the most interesting!
I think that would be interesting, if it was done by nation especially. Eg in the UK, how the Air Ministry comissioned proposals for certain types. why they made the requirements, and how the big players tried to meet the requirements, and what happened next... or not.
@@loveofmangos001 I must, most ardently disagree with you. The story of the manufactures is as significant as the aircraft they produced. The story of the great engineers and companies responsible for the machines we admire is enmeshed with the evolution of the aircraft themselves.
Love the interwar planes. Even as a kid was fascinated by the transitional period, and the overlap of clunky and innovative, as well as the "what ifs" that you raise. Thanks!
I'm always impressed with the amount of material that you managed to gather on a variety of rather obscure aircraft. I watch a lot of historical aircraft videos, and I have to say, the work you do is by far one of the best on the net. I hope you keep them coming.
The general layout of the Hendon is strikingly prescient of later bomber designs such as the AVRO Manchester, the Armstrong-Whitworth Whitley and the like. I wonder if it had any influence on their designers. Interestingly, the Whitley had no flaps either but the angle of incidence of the wing was increased to give a slower landing speed. This had the effect of making the aircraft have a distinctive nose down attitude whilst in flight.
I can't help thinking of a kind of convergent evolution when you look at side views of the Hendon, AW Whitley, and Avro Manchester - though obviously unrelated, you can see a clear pattern.
Yes, it seems to me that if you can move the fuel tanks into the outer wing freeing up space for retractable landing gear, and install more powerful engines, then the Hendon magically becomes an early war bomber. So much more forward thinking than the Heyford, though as always, hindsight is a wonderful thing.
@@peterharrington8709 I thought about that and whilst the argument does have merit According to A A Milne - who let's face it was one of Britain's real intellectual giants - It wasn't hindsight which was a wonderful thing .................. its Tiggers
Bomb cells were the weak point of the later Short Stirling. As they were designed to take the maximum bomb size of the day, when said sizes increased, something that hadn't been foreseen, the Stirling's bomb bay couldn't be upgraded without a major redesign.
"Fairey's only twin-engined aircraft." That depends on whether you regard the Double Mamba in the Gannet to be one or two engines, given that half of it drove each propeller and one half could be shut down for cruise economy.
Very valid point. That's sort of the same debate as to whether the Heinkel 177 was a 2-engined or 4-engined plane. Although the Double Mamba was certainly the more successful powerplant of the two.
@@petersoerent2554 I'm not comparing the engines. I said that's the same sort of debate about how many engines these planes have, whether a powerplant on either one counts as 1 or 2 engines. That's not the same as directly comparing the characteristics of the engines. People will debate if a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable, and if a peanut is a nut or a bean. The debates are similar; that doesn't mean people compare tomatoes to peanuts.
Always had a soft spot for the Hendon - as a nipper, I had a second hand copy of an "Aircraft Illustrated" annual from the mid-80s with an extnesive article on them.
Very interesting. Just to be pedantic though, there was another twin engined aircraft built by Fairey, that being the Gannet Anti-submrine and AEW aircraft for the Royal Navy - powered by an Armstrong Siddeley Double Mamba engine, which was two Mambas coupled together and driving contra-rotating props through common gearbox. When at cruising speed one of the Mambas could be shut down and its propeller feathered to save on fuel consumption an, thus increase patrol range.
I had arrived at our crew hotel ( Qatar Airways )...then went walking around and found myself at Hartford , I knew this was a former De Havilland town . I visited a small toy train park , all the people was friendly and happy ! Then I visited a Very old church (closed ) , so finally I went to an old tipically English Pub , there was a plaque stating it's origins dated from the 16th. or 17th. century ! This was around 16:00 pm. , beautiful springtime day . I ordered " Fish & chips " , plus a beer ...then I went investigating the place ; low ceilings , big wooden beams , Yes Sir it was very Old indeed ! Then I saw on one of the walls a very old framed , colored print of this Bomber ! I knew it from my years of brousing old Jane's books at the Chilean Air Force Academy , ( 1971-72 -73 - 74 ) ... I promised myself I would return some day with my son who works in London. This Bomber had beautiful lines and a Big , thick wing to carry that load with the available power ... No flaps , no hydraulic controls, no variable pitch propellers , rudimentary instrumentation and English Weather ! Hats off to these RAF Gentlemen !
Informative video, thought I'm a little confused why you mentioned the compromise between fuel and payload as if it was something that only troubled this aircraft in particular. It's pretty rare for any aircraft to be able to carry full fuel and the maximum payload at the same time.
Born and lived in Hendon. Went to the old Hendon aerodrome as a boy, now the RAF museum. Never new about this aircraft. Thanks for the research and presentation.
You would think those gargantuan landing gear spats would function fairly well as speed brakes for landing. Seriously, though, Fairey produced many innovative designs during the early century, but rarely received orders. This plane was definitely a progenitor of the WW2 era heavy bomber profile. Good video, the more obscure, the more I like them.
Another interesting insight into a period of design ferment comparable to the 1950s for jets. So many aircraft types seemed to stall for budgetary or program management as well as technical reasons, only to be obsolescent as the pace of development sped up in the 30s.
Are you going to do a vid on the Heyford. I worked alongside someone who worked on them prior to WWII. He said that at the start of the war, they were still in service and wouldn’t be replaced as the number of aircraft was set. The RAF sent them up a Scotland at a time a hurricane was coming through. These bombers were really kites and had to be secured down in windy areas as they would lift up with the wind. The aircraft in Scotland weren’t secured on the field when the hurricane struck with a predetermined result. They lifted up and crashed into each other for a total loss of aircraft. This allowed for modern aircraft to replace them.
That's really interesting. Presumably they would have been a training squadron? And of course, separating the men from the boys with their open cockpits too.
@@peterharrington8709 I do know that his squadron was depicted in the Matchbox model kit. As I had bought a copy of the kit for him as he wanted to build it with his grandson.
@@michaeltelson9798 Nice. I myself have an Airfix one hidden in my dad's attic. A rather beautiful old bird and the pride of my personal airforce in it's time.🙂
Looking at the aircraft and its blueprints, if they actually managed to figure out a way and find space in the wings to include retractable landing gear, it would have been by far not just a very modern-looking (for the times, that is) bomber, but probably the most modern bomber at the time.
As I'm looking at this, it seems that one thing the Hendon has got plenty of is empty space, and I wonder why. With some '30s planes, mostly small ones, it's wanting to have raindrop streamlining, but I can only assume the Hendon is so generously proportioned to get the right dimensions for its girders and space frames. Presumably they couldn't make room for the undercarriage because it would disrupt the arrangement of pyramids?
Contrary to the statement at the end of the video, this was not Fairey's final attempt at building bombers. But then, the less said about the Battle, the better.
How do we make our aircraft exciting. I know. We'll not fit any flaps. I seem to remember reading that its rival, the Handley Page Heyford, had an indirect link to the invention of radar. I came across this sometime ago so the details are a bit sketchy. Apparently the Heyford would often fly near the BBC's radio mast which affected the radio signal from the mast. When someone mentioned this to someone else it was realised that this could be used to track aircraft. And from there, with many other things happening in between, radar came about.
Though I don't recall the source, I remember reading the same, or that a Heyford was used in the early experiments. And across the pond, the same phenomenon was observed when a steamer passed by NAS Anacostia, disrupting the radio reception across the river. Without bothering to look it up, I don't know the origins of German radar, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a similar situation, as a few nations seem to have hit on the idea all about the same time.
@@mikearmstrong8483 As I mentioned it has been awhile since I read about this but it is perfectly possible that having noticed the the effects of the Heyford on the signal from the radio mast early experiments were carried out using the Heyford. That is interesting about the NAS Anacostia. I had not come across that. Thanks. At the moment I cannot remember about how the Germans became involved in radar but I believe it was about the same time as the British experiments. I do know that Germany wanted to know about the huge masts running along the south and east coasts of England. They suspected it may be some form of radar. In fact at one point before the war the Luftwaffe flew an airship out into the North Sea with the aim of detecting the British radar. The airship carried equipment onboard with the aim of detecting the radar but as it flew north could not pick up anything. Eventually when it was off the Yorkshire coast it flew inland were it was finally intercepted by RAF aircraft. Hurricanes I believe. What the Germans did not realise was that the British radar was working on a totally different wave band than the British radar and that the flight of the airship was tracked all the way. The British had not responded because that would have given the game away. Actually the wave band used by the Germans was a better one then the British. But they thought the British would have used the same wave band. Sometime being more efficient can play against you. Even after the war started the Germans still did not think Britain had radar. During the Battle of Britain German intelligence misunderstood the radio traffic between the ground controllers and the British fighter aircraft. They believed it was a crude way of intercepting the German forces by having the RAF pilots under very strict ground control, as with the North Vietnamese airforce in the Viet Nam war, rather than than as guidance to the pilots. Because of this they mostly believe that British pilots were not as good as German pilots. I have wondered if the Luftwaffe's airship flight was the first use of airborne intelligence gathering
@@bigblue6917 I read about the Zeppelin foray and it was most interesting. From what I remember of the book the British radar was based aroung 50 cycles, the same as the power grid so when the Germans encountered it they assumed it was just background 'noise' they were picking up from the grid. The large aerials were needed because at low frequency even when at half or quarter wavelength they were still large. Evidently the Russians had similar huge radar array in Europe that worked on low frequencies hence their size, can't remember where it was located East Germany? From what I understand older style low frequency can pick up stealth aircraft and that is how they shot one down over Serbia using an old scud missile battery!
@@vumba1331 Low-frequency radar _can_ detect stealth aircraft, but there's a lot of limitations to consider. There are relatively few low-frequency bands available for use, because many are used by other devices. The systems are enormous, too, so you can't really pack them up and move them around. There's also a lack of accuracy; with long wavelengths you get more diffraction. The low-frequency systems could tell a stealth aircraft is Over There, Somewhere, but guiding an interceptor or missile to it would be difficult to impossible. The F-117 that was shot down over Serbia was hit indirectly by a Perchora (not a Scud; Scuds are ballistic missiles, not SAMs) -- the missile exploded near enough to the plane to damage it.
You must be psychic. Id just come across this aircraft while researching british interwar bombers and it struck me as looking like an elder whitley, but upon closer examination, was a fairey design. Irregardless, its now added to my list of aircraft to model with cardboard.
At risk of seeming dismissive - which I genuinely am not aiming to be - wouldn't a mix of wire, balsa & fabric give you more of the shape. And maybe the option of creating something which could be flown? (The fairly cheap tiny electric motors seem to have an impressive if brief power output) (Possibly cardboard can be flown if resin coated 'though? I'm not modeller).
@@Farweasel no problem sir, i make static display models from thin sheets of cardboard, i can mold these into shape using heat and water. Landing gear oleo struts are of styrene model sprue. Canopies are of clear plastic sheet molded with heat to form. Guns are of Q-tip shafts with formed other parts. Wheels can be made of softer corrugated double layer cardboard pressed to shape via molds. After painting, details can be drawn onto the wings and fuselage using fine line black pen. National markings i can draw or print, cut out and paste on. These models do not fly, they are individually created artworks. I also make tanks, trucks, artillery pieces, ships, helmets, motorcycles, cars,guns, panzerfausts, grenades, etc etc etc. These are not typical corrugated box cardboard, but high quality single sheets of various thickness depending upon strength needed for the individual parts and size scale. Wingspars are of wooden dowel of appropriate thickness. Weathering details such as mud , chips, and stain are painted on. I use online pictures and all around view plans for construction to get the panel lines correct. In the end, theres little difference between a plastic kit, and my handmade models. I can make turrets turn and guns elevate, as well as wings fold if necessary via pins and hinges also formed exactingly of cardboard. Any unsightly seams are filled in with thin glued paper sheet. Interiors are filled with detail and painted accordingly. Crew can be purchased separately via kit if desired, in the proper necessary scale. Bracing and antenna wires are of common sewing thread. Antennae and pitot tubes can be of melted stretched sprue. A good eye can pick up common items for use on home made models, for example, cut plastic windowscreen for sailing ship ratlines. Etc. Hope this better describes what i do. Thanks.
@@HarborLockRoad I am genuinely impressed. Some of these things must be unique ... I suspect the Imperial War or RAF museum, and quite possibly others, would be rather keen to have them when you've finished with them.
the Fairey Gannet was technically powered by one engine but that one engine was two engines. So I guess their last propeller driven aircraft was also a twin?
The balancing of bomb load and fuel was still happening in bomber command. Large fuel & oil loads with light bomb load equals short trip light fuel and oil plus heavy load short trip.which was how crews worked out how far they'd fly that night.
That fuel/bombs balancing act was not unique. Bombers from 1914 to 2022 have had to do one or the other; carry a full bomb load over a reduced range, or fly a lot further carrying less. Considering that in-flight refueling experiments had started in the early 1920s, and a single plane had been kept airborne for almost a month (!) by 1935, I wonder why the practice was not adopted for service until post WWII.
All commercial jet airliners trade payload for range. More payload = less range. Payload makes money. Fuel (particularly if unneeded) costs money to carry. WW2 bombers did the same thing.
With the adition that today you can make use of in-flight refuelling so you take off with few minutes worth of fuel and as many bombs as you can carry and then when airborne top off your tanks
One of Fairey's most successful designs, the Gannet, was twin-engined, as the Double Mamba had two independent halves. It was the culmination of a series if design studies of WW2, often with two Merlin engines driving a single airscrew, or one half of one on a single axis.
I'm wondering if the Hendon pilot location on the left side of the cockpit was the beginning of this design choice for future British bombers. This location allowed access for the bomb aimer to go into the bomber's nose beyond the pilot such as in the Lancaster.
It's fascinating how far behind the curve the British bombers were in the inter-war years. This aircraft went into service in 1936; meanwhile the HE 111, almost 120 MPH faster and carrying 80% larger bomb load, went into service in 1935.
It was built to a 1927 specification and took forever to get developed and then ordered . The Wellington is contemporary with the He 111 your German 'wonder weapon' myth falls over then .
@@mathewkelly9968 To be fair the German aircraft from 1939 to 1940 were probably the best German wonderweapons (or atleast the most successful). I guess one should also consider the Arado 234 as a successful wonderweapon.
@@mathewkelly9968 No one said anything about German "wonder weapons". It is a simple comparison to an aircraft that was in service at the same time as the Hendon. But to avoid the chip on your shoulder, let's consider the Martin B10 or the Fiat Cicogna, both significantly faster, and the Fiat has a 40% larger bomb load. Also, the B10 went on line in 1934! I guess I should have said that I find it fascinating that an Air Force would bring a plane into service that was so far behind the other aircraft in use at the time. BTW, the Wellington didn't go into service until 1938, so apples and oranges.
Indeed. I also wonder if it had anything to do with the RAF biplane fighters also being embarrassingly slow and unable to intercept their own bombers. It's hard to imagine the phrase that " the bomber will always get through " would apply to something like a Heyford, but I guess that was actually what the evidence showed even into the mid thirties!
@@peterharrington8709 It intrigues me that no one in 1934 or 35 said "Boy the Hendon is an outdated type. We should just scrap the whole thing". It makes all the more remarkable the turnaround that the British made, such that by early 1942 they had in service the Spitfire, Typhoon, Lancaster, and Mosquito, all at or near the best of their type.
Very interesting, thank you. The Hendon is one of those planes I'd vaguely heard of but knew nothing about - which you have now rectified! The Whitely, although a major service type, is not much talked about these days - perhaps a video on its development and service history would be interesting?
The Handley Page Heyford looks just as dated as their WW1 0/400 model? What were they thinking?? The Hendon looks a decade in front. Great video. Thank you
British air authorities were notoriously conservative and could not get their heads around the idea that biplanes were relics. Tank design had much the same problem.
A few "odd but Interesting" suggestions if not already covered.... HP Heyford.... Westland Wyvern....The Lympne "How far can you get on a gallon of Petrol" contest of about 1922 and the designs eg DH Hummingbird... He 112....Martin Seamaster...Convair Sea Dart...Douglas Mixmaster...Fairey Rotodyne....
Well that IS rather funny. Every photo shows a slightly different design for the Hendon. I guess they were very lucky that their competitors were also having issues. But really who didn't in the 1920's everything was so new ?
Having lost out as a bomber -- with the addition of flaps it might've been a nice mail/passenger/cargo transport. Hmmm, maybe the monoplane design would've put off some takers, given they'd been weaned on biplanes as "proper flying machines."
Great video series. Not quite clear on the outer wing structure method as described. Were the tube pyramids within the space between the outer wing spars, or part of the outer spars?
Could somebody clarify for me whether a figure for an aircraft's range refers to the distance it can fly with a full tank, ie until it is empty, or the distance it can fly with a full tank before it has to turn back. Many thanks.
Range generally refers to the first definition, overall distance the ship can fly with a full tank. Your second definition, distance the ship can fly before it needs to turn back to base is generally referred to as combat radius. Of course, both of these numbers will vary due to the tradeoff between fuel load vs. bomb load as discussed in the video. This is a common issue for all bombers up to the present day. In-flight refueling does mitigate the problem to a great extent.
Ehrm, the Hendon may have been Fairey's only other twin-engine air_plane_ besides the 1917 prototype, but it wasn't their only other two-engine aircraft. There was also the Fairey Rotodyne -unless you count tipjets as engines, in which case that one technically has six.
I Live near Hendon . It seems some aircraft in the later 30s were a waste of money . Rearming with obsolete aircraft only having to scrape them a few years later . I suppose the crews needed something to fly .
Well, sir, there's nothing on earth Like a genuine, bona fide Steadified monoPLANE What'd I say? MonoPLANE What's it called? MonoPLANE That's right! MonoPLANE MonoPLANE MonoPLANE MonoPLANE!!!!
1920s1930s UK was awash in builders- Aircraft , automobiles, motorcycles... The USA and Germany likewise awash.. Golden age of industry for the 3 nations.. From trainers to flying Boats. And everything in between...
Seems like Fairey did quite a bit of the design work that other manufacturers then "borrowed", cutting down how long it took the others to get their aircraft completed.
3:47 "If the aircraft carried a full fuel load, it could not carry a full bomb load." That's true of almost any powered aircraft though. If you can lift max fuel and max payload at the same time, you're losing the option of flying with reduced/zero payload and more fuel for more range/flexibility with the same takeoff weight.
![Japan's Failed Copycat Bombers | Mitsubishi Ki-1 & Ki-2 [Aircraft Overview #61]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/46bBkc5dmjw/mqdefault.jpg)
![Japan's Failed Copycat Bombers | Mitsubishi Ki-1 & Ki-2 [Aircraft Overview #61]](/img/tr.png)
![The British Bomber That Looked Utterly Ridiculous | Handley Page Heyford [Aircraft Overview #91]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A4tr_INSnjk/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Polish-Built Hero Of Eastern Europe | PZL.24 [Aircraft Overview #94]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qM141DqhBJw/mqdefault.jpg)
![When The Luftwaffe Stuck Two Bombers Together | Heinkel He-111 Zwilling [Aircraft Overview #34]](/img/n.gif)
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.
Feel free to leave you questions below - I may not be able to answer all of them, but I will keep my eyes open :)
Use whatever measurements you feel like but all the best humans use Imperial, metric is for drones and NPC's
I guess the Fairey Gannet didn't meet the requirements for twin engine classification. (I think I heard one sobbing in the back)
@@TheSlaughtermatic excellent point! Long live the double mamba.
List of suggestions, Vickers Wellesley, the Po-2 and the Bu-222. I would also add the Flettner Fl 282, if helicopters are in your remit!
@@mikepette4422 as a proud Englishman. I disagree. Though imperial measures served us well, much as living in caves did.
The success that made this country great, from the reformation to the industrial Revolution, were about embracing something better than that which came before.
Metric may have been brought into the mainstream by that dasterdly imp, Bonaparte.
But it is of course the correct system of measurement in the modern world.
I really hope a proper history nerd gets all the double entendre in this post
I always liked the lines of the Hendon. It just "fits" for what a late 20s / early 30s RAF "heavy" should look like. Thanks for detailing it!
yes, in 1932 it would have been a "worldie" but by 1938.....
As always, very interesting. But I'm getting increasingly confused by the large number of aircraft manufacturers! How about a video one day that looks at the industry as a whole between the wars? How many builders were there, how did they fare, what rivalries were there, was there much consolidation during that time, etc. Maybe some analysis of what happened during and after the war too? (Or maybe that's another video!) I'd also be very interested in a general overview of technical developments, aircraft design, production methods, etc during the same period. I'm not really that knowlerdgeable about aircraft development, but it seems to me that the industry went from more or less the Wright age before WW1 to pretty much the modern era by the end of WW2, so this period, was possibly the most crucial for aircraft design and development - certainly the most interesting!
Much like early automobile and motorcycle manufacturers,, there have been literally thousands of aircraft manufacturers worldwide.
No one wants a video on airplane manufacturers, we don't care, that's boring. Just planes is why most people are here.
I think that would be interesting, if it was done by nation especially. Eg in the UK, how the Air Ministry comissioned proposals for certain types. why they made the requirements, and how the big players tried to meet the requirements, and what happened next... or not.
@@loveofmangos001
I must, most ardently disagree with you. The story of the manufactures is as significant as the aircraft they produced. The story of the great engineers and companies responsible for the machines we admire is enmeshed with the evolution of the aircraft themselves.
@@loveofmangos001 - you speak for yourself only, not everyone.
Love the interwar planes. Even as a kid was fascinated by the transitional period, and the overlap of clunky and innovative, as well as the "what ifs" that you raise. Thanks!
I'm always impressed with the amount of material that you managed to gather on a variety of rather obscure aircraft. I watch a lot of historical aircraft videos, and I have to say, the work you do is by far one of the best on the net. I hope you keep them coming.
Excellent! It's great you're giving these lesser-known interwar types a run. TFP
Great video. Loving these odd ball old war planes that time forgot.
The general layout of the Hendon is strikingly prescient of later bomber designs such as the AVRO Manchester, the Armstrong-Whitworth Whitley and the like. I wonder if it had any influence on their designers. Interestingly, the Whitley had no flaps either but the angle of incidence of the wing was increased to give a slower landing speed. This had the effect of making the aircraft have a distinctive nose down attitude whilst in flight.
If they could make those wings even slightly thinner...
There is no way the Whitley wasn't influenced from the Hendon, there too similar
This is a surprisingly neat-looking aircraft.
Now that is a snazzy kite - looks so modern compared to the biplane submissions from the other big companies.
I can't help thinking of a kind of convergent evolution when you look at side views of the Hendon, AW Whitley, and Avro Manchester - though obviously unrelated, you can see a clear pattern.
Yes, it seems to me that if you can move the fuel tanks into the outer wing freeing up space for retractable landing gear, and install more powerful engines, then the Hendon magically becomes an early war bomber. So much more forward thinking than the Heyford, though as always, hindsight is a wonderful thing.
@@peterharrington8709 I thought about that and whilst the argument does have merit
According to A A Milne - who let's face it was one of Britain's real intellectual giants -
It wasn't hindsight which was a wonderful thing
.................. its Tiggers
Bomb cells were the weak point of the later Short Stirling. As they were designed to take the maximum bomb size of the day, when said sizes increased, something that hadn't been foreseen, the Stirling's bomb bay couldn't be upgraded without a major redesign.
"Fairey's only twin-engined aircraft." That depends on whether you regard the Double Mamba in the Gannet to be one or two engines, given that half of it drove each propeller and one half could be shut down for cruise economy.
Very valid point. That's sort of the same debate as to whether the Heinkel 177 was a 2-engined or 4-engined plane. Although the Double Mamba was certainly the more successful powerplant of the two.
No ! You can not compare
with the He 177 !
The Gannet could always
turn one of the jet engines
completely of. Using only
one of the propellers.
@@petersoerent2554
I'm not comparing the engines.
I said that's the same sort of debate about how many engines these planes have, whether a powerplant on either one counts as 1 or 2 engines. That's not the same as directly comparing the characteristics of the engines.
People will debate if a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable, and if a peanut is a nut or a bean. The debates are similar; that doesn't mean people compare tomatoes to peanuts.
@@mikearmstrong8483 the Double Mamba was pretty much two independent engines, unlike things such as the DB series in the He-177.
The predecessor design studies to Gannet had two Merlins in most cases. The main difference was two sets of fuel feeds and exhaust stacks.
Always had a soft spot for the Hendon - as a nipper, I had a second hand copy of an "Aircraft Illustrated" annual from the mid-80s with an extnesive article on them.
Very interesting. Just to be pedantic though, there was another twin engined aircraft built by Fairey, that being the Gannet Anti-submrine and AEW aircraft for the Royal Navy - powered by an Armstrong Siddeley Double Mamba engine, which was two Mambas coupled together and driving contra-rotating props through common gearbox. When at cruising speed one of the Mambas could be shut down and its propeller feathered to save on fuel consumption an, thus increase patrol range.
a very good review of a plane most of us knew nothing about . THANK YOU FOR IT!
You can see what was to become the Lancaster &, in particular, the Sterling in the design.
Interesting and advanced design for the time. Especially with the "trousered" type faired landing gear.
I chuckled a bit at those Air Ministry specs. But those were probably pretty hot rod specs in the late 1920s, especially for a twin-engined bomber.
Fascinating! Never heard of this one. What an interesting time for aircraft that interwar period is. Great work Rex.
This is very informative, not much has been said about this aircraft.It looked modern in its day.
I enjoy watching your videos about all these less familiar- or forgotten airplanes from the past!
I've really been enjoying your videos after they popped up in my recommendations recently, keep up the good work!
This channel had to be up among the best of the genre.
I had arrived at our crew hotel ( Qatar Airways )...then went walking around and found myself at Hartford , I knew this was a former De Havilland town . I visited a small toy train park , all the people was friendly and happy !
Then I visited a Very old church (closed ) , so finally I went to an old tipically English Pub , there was a plaque stating it's origins dated from the 16th. or 17th. century !
This was around 16:00 pm. , beautiful springtime day . I ordered " Fish & chips " , plus a beer ...then I went investigating the place ; low ceilings , big wooden beams , Yes Sir it was very Old indeed !
Then I saw on one of the walls a very old framed , colored print of this Bomber !
I knew it from my years of brousing old Jane's books at the Chilean Air Force Academy , ( 1971-72 -73 - 74 ) ...
I promised myself I would return some day with my son who works in London.
This Bomber had beautiful lines and a Big , thick wing to carry that load with the available power ...
No flaps , no hydraulic controls, no variable pitch propellers , rudimentary instrumentation and English Weather !
Hats off to these RAF Gentlemen !
Informative video, thought I'm a little confused why you mentioned the compromise between fuel and payload as if it was something that only troubled this aircraft in particular. It's pretty rare for any aircraft to be able to carry full fuel and the maximum payload at the same time.
Born and lived in Hendon. Went to the old Hendon aerodrome as a boy, now the RAF museum. Never new about this aircraft. Thanks for the research and presentation.
You would think those gargantuan landing gear spats would function fairly well as speed brakes for landing. Seriously, though, Fairey produced many innovative designs during the early century, but rarely received orders. This plane was definitely a progenitor of the WW2 era heavy bomber profile. Good video, the more obscure, the more I like them.
Another interesting insight into a period of design ferment comparable to the 1950s for jets. So many aircraft types seemed to stall for budgetary or program management as well as technical reasons, only to be obsolescent as the pace of development sped up in the 30s.
It amazing when your drunk black and white photos are so cool.
Thank you for this video on an unjustly overlooked aircraft
Are you going to do a vid on the Heyford. I worked alongside someone who worked on them prior to WWII. He said that at the start of the war, they were still in service and wouldn’t be replaced as the number of aircraft was set. The RAF sent them up a Scotland at a time a hurricane was coming through. These bombers were really kites and had to be secured down in windy areas as they would lift up with the wind. The aircraft in Scotland weren’t secured on the field when the hurricane struck with a predetermined result. They lifted up and crashed into each other for a total loss of aircraft. This allowed for modern aircraft to replace them.
That's really interesting. Presumably they would have been a training squadron? And of course, separating the men from the boys with their open cockpits too.
@@peterharrington8709 I do know that his squadron was depicted in the Matchbox model kit. As I had bought a copy of the kit for him as he wanted to build it with his grandson.
@@michaeltelson9798 Nice. I myself have an Airfix one hidden in my dad's attic. A rather beautiful old bird and the pride of my personal airforce in it's time.🙂
I have a certain 'A W Whitley' feeling when I see the Hendon; the very thick wing, the tail assembly, and someting even of the fuselage.
Looking at the aircraft and its blueprints, if they actually managed to figure out a way and find space in the wings to include retractable landing gear, it would have been by far not just a very modern-looking (for the times, that is) bomber, but probably the most modern bomber at the time.
As I'm looking at this, it seems that one thing the Hendon has got plenty of is empty space, and I wonder why. With some '30s planes, mostly small ones, it's wanting to have raindrop streamlining, but I can only assume the Hendon is so generously proportioned to get the right dimensions for its girders and space frames. Presumably they couldn't make room for the undercarriage because it would disrupt the arrangement of pyramids?
Another great video on an aircraft I’ve never heard of!
Contrary to the statement at the end of the video, this was not Fairey's final attempt at building bombers. But then, the less said about the Battle, the better.
Couldn’t agree more.
Let's not forget the Albacore and Barracuda either. Both developed after the Hendon.
Perhaps he meant heavy bombers.
@@FieryCheeze yes, I think he probably meant larger, multi engine bombers.
Fulmar as well!
This one was simply ahead of time.
How do we make our aircraft exciting. I know. We'll not fit any flaps.
I seem to remember reading that its rival, the Handley Page Heyford, had an indirect link to the invention of radar. I came across this sometime ago so the details are a bit sketchy. Apparently the Heyford would often fly near the BBC's radio mast which affected the radio signal from the mast. When someone mentioned this to someone else it was realised that this could be used to track aircraft. And from there, with many other things happening in between, radar came about.
Though I don't recall the source, I remember reading the same, or that a Heyford was used in the early experiments. And across the pond, the same phenomenon was observed when a steamer passed by NAS Anacostia, disrupting the radio reception across the river. Without bothering to look it up, I don't know the origins of German radar, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a similar situation, as a few nations seem to have hit on the idea all about the same time.
@@mikearmstrong8483 As I mentioned it has been awhile since I read about this but it is perfectly possible that having noticed the the effects of the Heyford on the signal from the radio mast early experiments were carried out using the Heyford. That is interesting about the NAS Anacostia. I had not come across that. Thanks.
At the moment I cannot remember about how the Germans became involved in radar but I believe it was about the same time as the British experiments. I do know that Germany wanted to know about the huge masts running along the south and east coasts of England. They suspected it may be some form of radar. In fact at one point before the war the Luftwaffe flew an airship out into the North Sea with the aim of detecting the British radar. The airship carried equipment onboard with the aim of detecting the radar but as it flew north could not pick up anything. Eventually when it was off the Yorkshire coast it flew inland were it was finally intercepted by RAF aircraft. Hurricanes I believe. What the Germans did not realise was that the British radar was working on a totally different wave band than the British radar and that the flight of the airship was tracked all the way. The British had not responded because that would have given the game away. Actually the wave band used by the Germans was a better one then the British. But they thought the British would have used the same wave band. Sometime being more efficient can play against you.
Even after the war started the Germans still did not think Britain had radar. During the Battle of Britain German intelligence misunderstood the radio traffic between the ground controllers and the British fighter aircraft. They believed it was a crude way of intercepting the German forces by having the RAF pilots under very strict ground control, as with the North Vietnamese airforce in the Viet Nam war, rather than than as guidance to the pilots. Because of this they mostly believe that British pilots were not as good as German pilots.
I have wondered if the Luftwaffe's airship flight was the first use of airborne intelligence gathering
@@bigblue6917 I read about the Zeppelin foray and it was most interesting. From what I remember of the book the British radar was based aroung 50 cycles, the same as the power grid so when the Germans encountered it they assumed it was just background 'noise' they were picking up from the grid. The large aerials were needed because at low frequency even when at half or quarter wavelength they were still large.
Evidently the Russians had similar huge radar array in Europe that worked on low frequencies hence their size, can't remember where it was located East Germany?
From what I understand older style low frequency can pick up stealth aircraft and that is how they shot one down over Serbia using an old scud missile battery!
@@vumba1331 Low-frequency radar _can_ detect stealth aircraft, but there's a lot of limitations to consider. There are relatively few low-frequency bands available for use, because many are used by other devices. The systems are enormous, too, so you can't really pack them up and move them around. There's also a lack of accuracy; with long wavelengths you get more diffraction. The low-frequency systems could tell a stealth aircraft is Over There, Somewhere, but guiding an interceptor or missile to it would be difficult to impossible.
The F-117 that was shot down over Serbia was hit indirectly by a Perchora (not a Scud; Scuds are ballistic missiles, not SAMs) -- the missile exploded near enough to the plane to damage it.
@@thefez-cat Thanks for your response and the info, most interesting.
I learned something new today .. thank you.
You must be psychic. Id just come across this aircraft while researching british interwar bombers and it struck me as looking like an elder whitley, but upon closer examination, was a fairey design. Irregardless, its now added to my list of aircraft to model with cardboard.
At risk of seeming dismissive - which I genuinely am not aiming to be - wouldn't a mix of wire, balsa & fabric give you more of the shape.
And maybe the option of creating something which could be flown?
(The fairly cheap tiny electric motors seem to have an impressive if brief power output)
(Possibly cardboard can be flown if resin coated 'though? I'm not modeller).
@@Farweasel no problem sir, i make static display models from thin sheets of cardboard, i can mold these into shape using heat and water. Landing gear oleo struts are of styrene model sprue. Canopies are of clear plastic sheet molded with heat to form. Guns are of Q-tip shafts with formed other parts. Wheels can be made of softer corrugated double layer cardboard pressed to shape via molds. After painting, details can be drawn onto the wings and fuselage using fine line black pen. National markings i can draw or print, cut out and paste on. These models do not fly, they are individually created artworks. I also make tanks, trucks, artillery pieces, ships, helmets, motorcycles, cars,guns, panzerfausts, grenades, etc etc etc. These are not typical corrugated box cardboard, but high quality single sheets of various thickness depending upon strength needed for the individual parts and size scale. Wingspars are of wooden dowel of appropriate thickness. Weathering details such as mud , chips, and stain are painted on. I use online pictures and all around view plans for construction to get the panel lines correct. In the end, theres little difference between a plastic kit, and my handmade models. I can make turrets turn and guns elevate, as well as wings fold if necessary via pins and hinges also formed exactingly of cardboard. Any unsightly seams are filled in with thin glued paper sheet. Interiors are filled with detail and painted accordingly. Crew can be purchased separately via kit if desired, in the proper necessary scale. Bracing and antenna wires are of common sewing thread. Antennae and pitot tubes can be of melted stretched sprue. A good eye can pick up common items for use on home made models, for example, cut plastic windowscreen for sailing ship ratlines. Etc. Hope this better describes what i do. Thanks.
@@HarborLockRoad I am genuinely impressed.
Some of these things must be unique ... I suspect the Imperial War or RAF museum, and quite possibly others, would be rather keen to have them when you've finished with them.
I never knew about this aircraft. It was advanced when it first came out. Very interesting information. Thank you.
Two more engines and a retractable landing gear would have gone a long way. Such is life.
the Fairey Gannet was technically powered by one engine but that one engine was two engines. So I guess their last propeller driven aircraft was also a twin?
The balancing of bomb load and fuel was still happening in bomber command. Large fuel & oil loads with light bomb load equals short trip light fuel and oil plus heavy load short trip.which was how crews worked out how far they'd fly that night.
Very cool looking beast
That fuel/bombs balancing act was not unique. Bombers from 1914 to 2022 have had to do one or the other; carry a full bomb load over a reduced range, or fly a lot further carrying less. Considering that in-flight refueling experiments had started in the early 1920s, and a single plane had been kept airborne for almost a month (!) by 1935, I wonder why the practice was not adopted for service until post WWII.
All commercial jet airliners trade payload for range. More payload = less range.
Payload makes money. Fuel (particularly if unneeded) costs money to carry.
WW2 bombers did the same thing.
With the adition that today you can make use of in-flight refuelling so you take off with few minutes worth of fuel and as many bombs as you can carry and then when airborne top off your tanks
One of Fairey's most successful designs, the Gannet, was twin-engined, as the Double Mamba had two independent halves. It was the culmination of a series if design studies of WW2, often with two Merlin engines driving a single airscrew, or one half of one on a single axis.
There was also the Rotodyne.
I'm wondering if the Hendon pilot location on the left side of the cockpit was the beginning of this design choice for future British bombers. This location allowed access for the bomb aimer to go into the bomber's nose beyond the pilot such as in the Lancaster.
Really enjoy your videos
I am fascinated by obscure transitional aircraft types.
Thank You.
I can't help but see a slight resemblance to the later Avro Lancaster in this aircraft.
Could you do a video on the Handley page Harrow? My grandfather crewed one called Spady Lee during the war
It's fascinating how far behind the curve the British bombers were in the inter-war years. This aircraft went into service in 1936; meanwhile the HE 111, almost 120 MPH faster and carrying 80% larger bomb load, went into service in 1935.
It was built to a 1927 specification and took forever to get developed and then ordered . The Wellington is contemporary with the He 111 your German 'wonder weapon' myth falls over then .
@@mathewkelly9968 To be fair the German aircraft from 1939 to 1940 were probably the best German wonderweapons (or atleast the most successful).
I guess one should also consider the Arado 234 as a successful wonderweapon.
@@mathewkelly9968 No one said anything about German "wonder weapons". It is a simple comparison to an aircraft that was in service at the same time as the Hendon. But to avoid the chip on your shoulder, let's consider the Martin B10 or the Fiat Cicogna, both significantly faster, and the Fiat has a 40% larger bomb load. Also, the B10 went on line in 1934! I guess I should have said that I find it fascinating that an Air Force would bring a plane into service that was so far behind the other aircraft in use at the time. BTW, the Wellington didn't go into service until 1938, so apples and oranges.
Indeed. I also wonder if it had anything to do with the RAF biplane fighters also being embarrassingly slow and unable to intercept their own bombers. It's hard to imagine the phrase that " the bomber will always get through " would apply to something like a Heyford, but I guess that was actually what the evidence showed even into the mid thirties!
@@peterharrington8709 It intrigues me that no one in 1934 or 35 said "Boy the Hendon is an outdated type. We should just scrap the whole thing". It makes all the more remarkable the turnaround that the British made, such that by early 1942 they had in service the Spitfire, Typhoon, Lancaster, and Mosquito, all at or near the best of their type.
Splendidly presented sir.
Thank you for posting!
Very interesting, thank you. The Hendon is one of those planes I'd vaguely heard of but knew nothing about - which you have now rectified! The Whitely, although a major service type, is not much talked about these days - perhaps a video on its development and service history would be interesting?
Very interesting and informative, thanks for the video!
Thanks for the interesting video.
The Handley Page Heyford looks just as dated as their WW1 0/400 model? What were they thinking??
The Hendon looks a decade in front. Great video. Thank you
British air authorities were notoriously conservative and could not get their heads around the idea that biplanes were relics. Tank design had much the same problem.
A few "odd but Interesting" suggestions if not already covered.... HP Heyford.... Westland Wyvern....The Lympne "How far can you get on a gallon of Petrol" contest of about 1922 and the designs eg DH Hummingbird... He 112....Martin Seamaster...Convair Sea Dart...Douglas Mixmaster...Fairey Rotodyne....
Hmmm. The Hendon bears a striking resemblance to the Armstrong-Whitworth Whitley, which came along a few years later.
As always, very interesting!
what a fantastic channel! keep up the amazing work :)
Great video 👍
Well that IS rather funny. Every photo shows a slightly different design for the Hendon. I guess they were very lucky that their competitors were also having issues. But really who didn't in the 1920's everything was so new ?
The Armstrong Whitley Whitworth was quite a similar design. But with retractable main landing gear.
A rare case where a Fairey machine was less staggeringly ugly than its competitors.
Pilots willing to risk a court-martial to sneak off and fly the plane is probably one of the highest marks one could receive, lol
Nice vid.
8:04 Burst out laughing when the photo of the "preferred" bomber prototype popped up
Having lost out as a bomber -- with the addition of flaps it might've been a nice mail/passenger/cargo transport. Hmmm, maybe the monoplane design would've put off some takers, given they'd been weaned on biplanes as "proper flying machines."
Was Battle constructed in similar way to Hendon? I'm wondering about the steel tubes used in fuselage.
Very interesting, thank you!
Great video series. Not quite clear on the outer wing structure method as described. Were the tube pyramids within the space between the outer wing spars, or part of the outer spars?
Beautifull streamline design, late 1920s / early 1930s design!
Could somebody clarify for me whether a figure for an aircraft's range refers to the distance it can fly with a full tank, ie until it is empty, or the distance it can fly with a full tank before it has to turn back. Many thanks.
Range generally refers to the first definition, overall distance the ship can fly with a full tank. Your second definition, distance the ship can fly before it needs to turn back to base is generally referred to as combat radius. Of course, both of these numbers will vary due to the tradeoff between fuel load vs. bomb load as discussed in the video. This is a common issue for all bombers up to the present day. In-flight refueling does mitigate the problem to a great extent.
@@jefftuckercfii Thanks Jeff
You can see the Swordfish influence on the tailplanes.
Fairey built the FD2. First 1,000 mph aircraft!
Interesting video, I was not aware of this aircraft. You have a sub from me 👍
Those old bombers achieved remarkable payload range at the cost of speed, climb and altitude.
Never heard of that plane before. When I think of Fairey I think of the Battle.
It has a resemblance to the Avro Manchester with some better wing sections
The exhaust stacks seem to be pointing forward. How strange is that.
Ehrm, the Hendon may have been Fairey's only other twin-engine air_plane_ besides the 1917 prototype, but it wasn't their only other two-engine aircraft. There was also the Fairey Rotodyne -unless you count tipjets as engines, in which case that one technically has six.
I always like how the Brits put targets on their aircraft, damn good sports of them! =)
I Live near Hendon . It seems some aircraft in the later 30s were a waste of money . Rearming with obsolete aircraft only having to scrape them a few years later . I suppose the crews needed something to fly .
Looks like a candidate for another two Kestrel engines and a retractable undercarriage to me...
The Fairey Gannet was also twin engined...
Well, sir, there's nothing on earth
Like a genuine, bona fide
Steadified monoPLANE
What'd I say?
MonoPLANE
What's it called?
MonoPLANE
That's right! MonoPLANE
MonoPLANE
MonoPLANE
MonoPLANE!!!!
A real life Fairey tale
1920s1930s
UK was awash in builders-
Aircraft , automobiles, motorcycles...
The USA and Germany likewise awash..
Golden age of industry for the 3 nations..
From trainers to flying Boats. And everything in between...
Another excellent video. One request from my wife, please can you restrict the amount of videos you produce so I can get stuff done around the house!
Thank you
James May:
some one said "buffeting!!!???"
Too early, but very forward thinking. Glancing at it you can see future British heavy bomber design.
Seems like Fairey did quite a bit of the design work that other manufacturers then "borrowed", cutting down how long it took the others to get their aircraft completed.
3:47 "If the aircraft carried a full fuel load, it could not carry a full bomb load."
That's true of almost any powered aircraft though. If you can lift max fuel and max payload at the same time, you're losing the option of flying with reduced/zero payload and more fuel for more range/flexibility with the same takeoff weight.
Wasn’t the gannet twin engined?
Nice!
how much did aircraft change from 1925 to 35. only 10 years but in that time they got all their modern look