Agreed!

True, but I have to say the nosegear design on the Trident was bizzare......retracted sideways and was off centreline when down and locked!

Wonderful comment, thanks!

My pleasure, and thanks for watching!

Agreed!

Agree. I love the old concept art for flying wing passenger planes.

@@ninus17 Yes, and they are making a comeback.

Really appreciate the comment, thanks!

What the Britannia should have been. The Britannia was largely let down by its Proteus turboprops, which were never really as trouble free as they should have been. Canadair opted for Rolls Royce Tynes when designing the CL-44. The Tyne was a better engine overall.

Agreed!

We are of the same generation Barbara - I fell in love with the VC-10 after seeing them at JFK in the mid-1960s. Those dark blue and metallic gold markings were absolutely stunning!

He misspelled Herald as "Herold" in the opening...

Appreciate the comment, thanks!

Great idea!

Good idea, I hope he sees this comment

@@kingtiger435 Oh, he will!

The VC10 was supposedly the loudest aircaft licensed to take off in Britain. BA callsign: Speedbird RAF transport callsign: Ascot

It's missing the Trident 3B, which actually had four turbojets. Three RB163-25, and one RB162-86

Greetings to a fellow New Yorker ("my" airport was JFK), and thanks for watching!

@@celebratingaviationwithmik9782 When I was 13 we moved to Garden City, LI. Got to watch the heavies and Concorde on approach to 22L at JFK.

Appreciate the comment, many thanks!

Appreciate the comment, thanks Jerry!

Agreed on the lack of modern airport access for us enthusiasts today, and thanks for watching!

Thanks Jeff!

Wonderful comment, thanks!

Good catch David, and two British BEA DC-3s were tested with Darts in 1951 as part of the engine development program for the Viscount. The stretched Basler conversions use Pratt & Whitney PT6A turboprop powerplants. Thanks for watching!

@@celebratingaviationwithmik9782 There was also a turboprop DC-3 conversion using THREE turboprop engines called (no prizes for originality) the Tri-Turbo DC-3. I saw the one and only example at the 1978 Farnborough Air Show.

@@EricIrl I do remember that one!

It was overtaken by current piston engine types - never mind jets. It was out of date even before it flew because the operating economics of the thing just didn't make any sense. That's why BOAC (it's intended customer) showed not a jot of interest in it and instead bought Constellations, Stratocruisers and DC-7s.

Very cool that you got to see that jet, and yes, the VC-10 was a terrific long-range transport. Thanks for watching!

Love it!

For de Havilland anyway. I don't think anybody else had such problems.

@@EricIrl They may not have had such problems, but the entire industry learned from it. It even served as an example taught in engineering schools.

@@rickd9096 An example of how not to go about designing a pressurised fuselage. I can think of no other airliner that suffered explosive decompression due to fuselage fatigue failure - and that includes those pressurised aircraft that existed BEFORE the Comet (of which there were quite a few).

@@EricIrl The lesson is that, basically, you don’t design a pressurized aircraft with square windows and attachments where sharp corners act as stress risers for fatigue cracks.

@@EricIrl it was the result of those accident investigations that led to the understanding of stress raisers; prior to Comet there were no high flying civilian aircraft that ran through pressurisation cycles so often. It enabled other manufacturers to learn and avoid those issues. Sometimes being first can be a major handicap.

It was a truly beautiful airplane well ahead of its time. Thanks for watching!

Great comment, thanks! Have heard same from other 146 pilots over the years.

Always called the 146s "clamahells" because of the split airbrakes in the fuselage tail.

@@randytaylor1258 Yeah! that's how they made a fast jet able to execute steep approaches 🤓

Is that the predecessor of the Vectored Omni Range navigation beacon?

@@tumakbaluk Actually, your term is more accurate. I just checked Wiki and they are still in use worldwide.

Yes, old-fashioned round-faced analog gauges.

Yes, that term is actually European - first heard it from a French Caravelle pilot.

I’d guess it’s because of the similarities to the gauges on an old steam locomotive. Interesting that steam locomotives went out of service 70-80 years ago but the reference lives on. Terrific videos, Mike. Thanks so much!

I think De Havilland in the DH-108 Swallow was said to be the first despite the subsequent break up of the Swallow.

@@baselhammond3317 The DH.108 briefly achieved Mach 1 in a dive in September 1948, one year after Yeager's Bell X-1 flight. However, it became the first supersonic aircraft to take off and land under its own power. Thanks for watching!

Yes, good catch!

Yes, I had three flights in the Concorde - one was subsonic (Mach 0.98) when Braniff International flew interline flights with British Airways and Air France from Dulles Airport in Washington to Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas. Thanks for watching!

"The crash investigation of a BAC-111 led to understanding of the deep-stall" phenomenon." In the early 80's I was told by a long-time DAC hydraulics engineer that after the 1-11 crash, the DC-9 (still on the drawing board) "got a 50% larger* horizontal stabilizer overnight". I don't have any verification for that, or know how exact his 50% number was. * Presumably the subject was area, i.e. ~22% larger lineal dimensions.

Nice info, thanks for sharing.

Terrific comment and good information, thanks!

Oh wow!

Not quite. In the Trident 1 and 2, the APU was in a bullet fairing at the base of the trailing edge of the tail fin. With the Trident 3, the APU was relocated to a position just above the centre engine air intake. A small booster engine (the Rolls Royce RB162) was installed where the APU used to be.

Yes, exactly. Looking at that view of the Comet, my guess would be the photographer was in the tail of a piston-powered Lancaster or similar bomber converted for that purpose, hence the need for the Comet to reduce airspeed to stay in formation. Thanks for watching!

Nice catch, Mike. You can just see the trailing edge of an inner flap but no evidence of increased AOA.

Yes, that is correct in that the Tu-144 was the first SST to fly in December 1968. Concorde flew three months later, but became the first and only successful SST to enter sustained long-term scheduled International service. Thanks for watching.

@@celebratingaviationwithmik9782 - The Concorde was certainly the superior aircraft. It's been said that the passenger cabin of the Tu 144 was so loud that normal conversation was impossible. Passengers passed hand written notes to each other.

Yes it did, though at the cost of safety and comfort. Sad really, the design had great potential. (good trivia tidbit 👍🏽)

@@tumakbaluk It never worked properly. Aeroflot only operated it for a very short period. Even a state owned non profit making airline like the Communist era Aeroflot could not justify keeping it in service.

Craig... Because at that time nobody knew how to tame the aerodynamics of podded engines hanging from struts below the wing. Look at all the propliners... The engines were all built into the wing. They simply carried on with the tradition. Boeing was the first to solve the pod issues on the b47 bomber.

@@BobbyGeneric145 I figured it might be something like that, that would be logical for the time. Never hurts to ask. Thanks much.

@@craiglordable Suspending jet engines on underwing pylons was not just about aerodynamics. Boeing wanted a thin, swept wing on their B-47 (and on their 367-80/707 too). The problem with a thin swept wing is that it is far more subject to bending forces, which would create fatigue and eventual wing failure. One solution would be to make the wing spar very strong and heavy, negating the speed advantage of the thin wing. By placing the engines on pods suspended under the wing, the engines are actually used as counterbalances to reduce the bending moment of the wing. A swept wing also want to bend upwards at the leading edge, so not only are the engines hung below the wing, they are also placed as far in front of the leading edge as possible to reduce that leading edge twist.

@@EricIrl Yes I understood the Boeing concept since I've been around that long and it is very smart. Thanks for this input as it not only explains the pylon idea but a very good explanation of swept wings. Very well said. What are your thoughts on engines on the tail? Over the years my pilot friends and I have had discussions about tail mounted engines. There are pros and cons. Interested to hear your thoughts, I'm sure it would be good. Thanks!

@@craiglordable The theory behind rear mounted engines was that they would leave the wings clean so they could be aerodynamically more efficient. However, as always, there are downsides too. For a start, without the weight of engines on the wing counteracting wing flex, you do end up with a stronger and heavier wing spar to ensure the wing doesn't bend too much. In addition, with engines mounted at the rear, you have to find a new home for the tailplane/horizontal stabiliser. This usually either ends up half way up the tail fin or on top of the tail fin ( a T-Tail) . This then requires that the tail fin structure needs to be beefed up (and made heavier - of course) in order to support the high mounted tailplane. And to cap it all - high mounted tailplanes and the elevators mounted on them are prone to becoming useless if the aircraft is allowed to get into a situation where its nose is too high and the speed is too low i.e. a situation known as a deep stall. If a deep stall occurs, the aircraft is pretty much irrecoverable as the pilot cannot get the nose down into the stall recovery position because airflow over the high set tail plane is blanked by the stalled main wings. As a result, all T-Tailed aircraft have multiple warning and automatic recovery devices installed which try to prevent the aircraft from getting into a deep stall situation in the first place. A number of early T-Tailed airliners were lost in deep stalls - the prototype BAC 1-11 and a Vickers VC-10. After a flurry of rear engine/high mounted tailplane airliner designs (starting with the Caravelle), most airliner manufacturers today have adopted the underwing engine solution. T-Tails and rear mounted engines are still popular in biz jet layouts and smaller commuter jets - which are often derived from biz jets anyway. The main reason is that most biz jets are smaller than airliners and therefore have shorter main undercarriages, which places the wing lower to the ground. This makes it difficult for designers to mount modern high bypass turbofan engines under the wing due to lack of ground clearance.

Although it never worked properly.

Rack it up with Canada's Avro Arrow.

Interesting point, thanks.

It was the first one that worked.

Could be a movie prop.

@@BobbyGeneric145 It was a real aircraft, a Viscount, I think.