One of my favorite history-oriented channels. Love the fact there is no annoying intro, horrible music, useless B-Roll, just straight into the story, kudos Ruairideh.
Over confident. Even today globally you find companies that dominate industries often become complacent and over confident that no one can touch them due to size .
It didn't. It concentrated on the Cold War arms industry. The UK is still top notch in that field with BAE and satellite manufacturing, but we couldn't compete with Germany and Japan which had all of their engineers concentrating on civilian industries.
The British didn't drop the ball. American private sector and government had the funds to invest in good ideas and the ability to chance it on some stupid ones. The Brits were broke. Heavily in debt to the yanks they were competing with and expected to contribute to European defense from day one, unlike the situation in Europe and Asian countries.
It would be nice to blame the government or the poor economy, but most of Britain's failed designs just did not match the market's needs. In the late 40s and early 50s, everyone wanted fast, land-based passenger planes. Of the 7 planes designed by the Brabazon Committee, only 3 were successful. The manufacturers in Britain were not good at projecting market needs the same way the Americans were.
Excellent presentation, as always. I trained at Short Brothers in Belfast and I remember hearing the old-hands chatting about the Sealand. I always look forward to your videos, a real delight to watch, very informative. Keep up the good work.
The later TV personality Hughie Green flew one of these ..i cannot remember if it was in the capacity of test pilot or owner. It makes a wonderful semi scale electric flight RC model. Its a pity that so few amphibians like this survived it would be a natural short haul link aircraft to countless Island coastal and inland water bodies. Like many other surviving types turbo props would be easy performance up date to a useful sized airframe.
I remember the Aquila Airways flying boats and the Princesses at Calshot and made an Airfix model of a Sealand in the late1950s. One used to pronounce 'flying boats as a single compound word ie. two nouns and I notice that many US speakers refer to the a/c as two distinct words making 'flying' sound like an adverb with 'boats' as the only noun. It sounds very strange - one recalls that wartime Emett cartoon of a canal barge with Wellington wings.
Had a little bit more effort been put into this machine it could have been a success even if it was only in private hands. They managed to sell 63 Piaggio 136 so this could have sold at least as many if not more.
A lovely aircraft that should have had more success. I have to disagree that this was intended as a replacement or competitor to the Grumman Goose. More likely, the closest competitor was Grumman's larger Mallard. Very close dimensionally, but the Mallard was heavier, carried a bigger load, and considerably more range. As you noted, the Sealand may have been more successful with more powerful engines.
Airframe is very pleasant but it needs a pair of the then unavailable PT6. It might then have been successful with development and upgrading still going.
too few and expensive for the time, only the Rolls-Royce Dart and AS Python/Mamba were available by 1950 which were also too big and powerful for the size of this aircraft.
A lot here will say government incompetance, and while that is alarge factor, its not all of it. As the video suggests, thee was a lot of complacency in the UK, in that the post-war world would be a lot like the pre-war one. And one of those assumptions was that there would continue to be an empire which would continue to buy British. There wasn't, but there was a USA that had just massively ramped up things like aircraft production, and was eagerly looking for new markets after those WWII military contracts dried up. Another factor is that the UK never really modernised its industry after WWII. I would almost say that the UK was a vicitim of its success in WWII where it just had ro repair its badly damaged industry whereas Japan and Germany lost badly and had to start from scratch. Their industries were much more modern as a result, using much more modern maufacturing techniques, leading to cheaper and more realible products. And they really had to try hard to break into new markets and actually regain trust.
No, not currently flown by anyone (last flights in India, 58 years ago, and as the video says, only three left in museums now). The RAF never operated the type. The Marines (I take it you mean the British Royal Marines, as you mentioned the RAF) have never operated ANY aircraft.
@@AtheistOrphan I take it you would assume Britain. as it is a british aircraft. So it has not military capability nor operation. --Thank you for-- what is a backhanded way of stating that. or do you struggle with implied meaning?
@@rat_king- - British aircraft HAVE been operated by other countries (as mentioned in this very video). To clarify, you asked ‘the RAF or marines’, I don’t know what country you come from, but the nomenclature ‘The Marines’ (Note correct use of capital letter M) is, on an international forum such as this, is most commonly applied to the US Marines, where as the British Marines are most commonly referred to as the ‘Royal Marines’. I was only trying to help by answering your question Mr Snippy. Let me paste your question and give you an answer you may find more acceptable then: ‘So... these ARE flown by the RAF or marines? YES! Despite the video clearly stating that they are only three examples left in museums, both the RAF and the marines (despite the Royal Marines NEVER having flown any aircraft) operate fleets of many hundreds of these 78 year-old aircraft. I hope you find that answer more acceptable. Merry Christmas!
It does look nice. But so typically British first praising this bucket for it's fabulous DeHavilland Gipsy engines and almost immediately noting that that was it's biggest flaw. Screamingly funny, that.
'British aircraft manufucturers wedded to flying boats for civil airliners' - the French were not then I suppose? Also, in the same period the UK produced the Comet and the Viscount, so please do not peddle misinformation. The point of the Brabazon Committee was to propose a slew of types for the civil market and it did so, it was for the market to decide if these were of use.
Like the Goose. Really. Then go and buy a Goose for an apple and an egg. Why did they think for one single moment that they can possibly get into this market. Hopeless, British, face plant, business as usual.
The same reasoning brought forth the Vickers Viscount as a replacement for the Dakota, another pre-WW2 design. The Vicount was fairly successful in replacing the aging Dakotas.
One of my favorite history-oriented channels. Love the fact there is no annoying intro, horrible music, useless B-Roll, just straight into the story, kudos Ruairideh.
It's sad and weird how almost every aspect of British manufacturing dropped the ball after ww2
Over confident. Even today globally you find companies that dominate industries often become complacent and over confident that no one can touch them due to size .
It didn't. It concentrated on the Cold War arms industry. The UK is still top notch in that field with BAE and satellite manufacturing, but we couldn't compete with Germany and Japan which had all of their engineers concentrating on civilian industries.
The British didn't drop the ball. American private sector and government had the funds to invest in good ideas and the ability to chance it on some stupid ones. The Brits were broke. Heavily in debt to the yanks they were competing with and expected to contribute to European defense from day one, unlike the situation in Europe and Asian countries.
Much of it can be squarely blamed on the government, and its almost comical ineptitude 🤦♂️
It would be nice to blame the government or the poor economy, but most of Britain's failed designs just did not match the market's needs. In the late 40s and early 50s, everyone wanted fast, land-based passenger planes. Of the 7 planes designed by the Brabazon Committee, only 3 were successful. The manufacturers in Britain were not good at projecting market needs the same way the Americans were.
Excellent presentation, as always. I trained at Short Brothers in Belfast and I remember hearing the old-hands chatting about the Sealand. I always look forward to your videos, a real delight to watch, very informative. Keep up the good work.
Lovely looking plane.
The later TV personality Hughie Green flew one of these ..i cannot remember if it was in the capacity of test pilot or owner.
It makes a wonderful semi scale electric flight RC model.
Its a pity that so few amphibians like this survived it would be a natural short haul link aircraft to countless Island coastal and inland water bodies. Like many other surviving types turbo props would be easy performance up date to a useful sized airframe.
I love so many flying boats, they're just so cool.
Never seen a flying boat before but it does look pretty impressive and massive. Perhaps we should have more of these flying boats lol
I remember the Aquila Airways flying boats and the Princesses at Calshot and made an Airfix model of a Sealand in the late1950s. One used to pronounce 'flying boats as a single compound word ie. two nouns and I notice that many US speakers refer to the a/c as two distinct words making 'flying' sound like an adverb with 'boats' as the only noun. It sounds very strange - one recalls that wartime Emett cartoon of a canal barge with Wellington wings.
I think the Airfix kit was a Grumman Widgeon, not a Sealand..
@@aj-2savage896 Frog made a kit
@@talesfromthehutandhangar Yes, I remember that one.
It's one of my favourites. Lovely aircraft. Great video. Well done.
Beautiful aircraft
This looks really interesting to see a flying plane that can act as a boat on water. Fabulous stuff.
Hey Rory, you are still sneaking in unrelated images but otherwise an informative piece. Grudging thumbs up.😊
Looks like Douglas Bader at 6:42.
0:13 never mind the Sealand what's that 4 engine twin fin aircraft lower left ?
You know, that's a damn good question.
Handley page marathon/miles M60 marathon
Nice and informative video. I would very much embrace a video on the Brabazon Committee and its proposed aircraft.
Time to bring flying boats, seaplanes and airships back especially if they use green technology to power them such as electric motors.
Missed opportunity. If Short had converted the Sealand into a water bomber, it would probably still be in service today !
Had a little bit more effort been put into this machine it could have been a success even if it was only in private hands. They managed to sell 63 Piaggio 136 so this could have sold at least as many if not more.
A lovely aircraft that should have had more success. I have to disagree that this was intended as a replacement or competitor to the Grumman Goose. More likely, the closest competitor was Grumman's larger Mallard. Very close dimensionally, but the Mallard was heavier, carried a bigger load, and considerably more range. As you noted, the Sealand may have been more successful with more powerful engines.
Great vid 😀
Thank you 👍
Airframe is very pleasant but it needs a pair of the then unavailable PT6. It might then have been successful with development and upgrading still going.
Did they never consider turboprop engines?
too few and expensive for the time, only the Rolls-Royce Dart and AS Python/Mamba were available by 1950 which were also too big and powerful for the size of this aircraft.
Pretty aeroplane.
Mass production, and 25 were built, right. That is NOT what I call mass production. That is not even a trickle.
A lot here will say government incompetance, and while that is alarge factor, its not all of it.
As the video suggests, thee was a lot of complacency in the UK, in that the post-war world would be a lot like the pre-war one. And one of those assumptions was that there would continue to be an empire which would continue to buy British. There wasn't, but there was a USA that had just massively ramped up things like aircraft production, and was eagerly looking for new markets after those WWII military contracts dried up.
Another factor is that the UK never really modernised its industry after WWII. I would almost say that the UK was a vicitim of its success in WWII where it just had ro repair its badly damaged industry whereas Japan and Germany lost badly and had to start from scratch. Their industries were much more modern as a result, using much more modern maufacturing techniques, leading to cheaper and more realible products. And they really had to try hard to break into new markets and actually regain trust.
So... these are flown by the RAF or marines?
No, not currently flown by anyone (last flights in India, 58 years ago, and as the video says, only three left in museums now).
The RAF never operated the type.
The Marines (I take it you mean the British Royal Marines, as you mentioned the RAF) have never operated ANY aircraft.
@@AtheistOrphan I take it you would assume Britain. as it is a british aircraft. So it has not military capability nor operation. --Thank you for-- what is a backhanded way of stating that.
or do you struggle with implied meaning?
@@rat_king- - British aircraft HAVE been operated by other countries (as mentioned in this very video).
To clarify, you asked ‘the RAF or marines’, I don’t know what country you come from, but the nomenclature ‘The Marines’ (Note correct use of capital letter M) is, on an international forum such as this, is most commonly applied to the US Marines, where as the British Marines are most commonly referred to as the ‘Royal Marines’.
I was only trying to help by answering your question Mr Snippy.
Let me paste your question and give you an answer you may find more acceptable then:
‘So... these ARE flown by the RAF or marines?
YES! Despite the video clearly stating that they are only three examples left in museums, both the RAF and the marines (despite the Royal Marines NEVER having flown any aircraft) operate fleets of many hundreds of these 78 year-old aircraft.
I hope you find that answer more acceptable.
Merry Christmas!
Oh how I wish thar last part to be true😊
I have always had a soft spot for flying boats, such gorgeous aircraft.
It does look nice. But so typically British first praising this bucket for it's fabulous DeHavilland Gipsy engines and almost immediately noting that that was it's biggest flaw. Screamingly funny, that.
😀
Looks like turboprops but arent
'British aircraft manufucturers wedded to flying boats for civil airliners' - the French were not then I suppose? Also, in the same period the UK produced the Comet and the Viscount, so please do not peddle misinformation. The point of the Brabazon Committee was to propose a slew of types for the civil market and it did so, it was for the market to decide if these were of use.
first...Oh yea, I'm the first to comments. What do I win?
Nothing sadly, unless you manage to get some internal good feeling from it.
🏅 🏆
@@heidirabenau511 I will accept this reward with gratitude and treasure it for a lifetime.😃
@@More_Row oh botheration...😏
This cookie 🍪😃
😂
Like the Goose. Really. Then go and buy a Goose for an apple and an egg. Why did they think for one single moment that they can possibly get into this market. Hopeless, British, face plant, business as usual.
The same reasoning brought forth the Vickers Viscount as a replacement for the Dakota, another pre-WW2 design. The Vicount was fairly successful in replacing the aging Dakotas.