They profiled the interceptor variant and stated the tornado eventually became a capable ground attack platform

Hush Kit are talking about the fighter version - which was a weird thing to develop from a low level bomber. There is no question that the low level bomber version, in its original guise, was a great aircraft.

Fact : The Tornado interceptor variant was very bad , very bad , FACT. Tornado low level attack Mk. was pretty good , in certain situations , very good , the interceptor , straight up piece of s--.

Jack FM is now Union Jack radio. It's national and DAB :)

I found this very helpful. Thank you.

or not at all in my opinion

Watching at 1.25 speed is great, thanks for the suggestion.

holy shit thanks

DON'T DO THAT!!!! - it looses completely the momentum - what makes it funny!

Much like those yanks and Boeing eh

That's why it made it's operational debut in 1959 and was ditched in 1972, round objects, as the narrator said at the beginning sea vixens were DEATH TRAPS and proved it with the DEATHS of aircrew

@@00silentstorm what the he'll are you talking about do you know words u idiot

Me win you right who cares about the crappy American planes

And we've always had better planes I love the jump jet hawker harrier

J'ai pensé comme vous. Le Paul Defiant avaient beaucoup de défauts : une mitrailleuse à l'arrière, par exemple.

Absolutely, great video, really illustrates Brit aircraft design and manufacture eh

Yeah, I agree about the Sea Vixen. I remember seeing one fly over my house when I was a kid and thought it was such a "cool" looking plane, I wanted to know all about it. The most unusual feature being that the navigator didn't have a window or a cabin heater. I also found out that one of these planes could re-fuel another, but the lead plane had to fly at a 90 degree angle to prevent clipping the tail of the other, which must have been scary as hell for the pilots and especially the navigator's not really knowing what the fuck was going on!

d r No the Suez Crisis was in 1956 before the Sea Vixen entering service, they used Sea Hawk, Venom, and Wyvern. The challenge was operating a relatively big and heavy aircraft off such small carriers and the delayed ejection by its observer due to them having such limited visibility.

@Graham Ariss actually there were a fair few Hawker Hunters over there too - my father was in the RAF over there maintaining them at the time.

Gordon Lawrence Yes and Valiants and Canberra but like the Hawked Hurricane they were from the RAF and not the Fleet Air Arm.

Better in a turning fight than the F-4. Really? The QE2 was better in a turning fight than an F-4, but that doesn't make it a better aircraft. The F4 was about twice as fast as the Sea Vixen with correspondingly higher climb and dive speeds. Any combat between them would have been on the F-4 pilot's terms, and wouldn't have gone well for the Brit. There is good reason why the F-4 is still in service in several air forces today.

And the Yanks were in awe of it when it came to low flying exercises. I've been told a story of a US pilot taken for a back seat ride in one who had to change his undies after landing as he couldn't handle how close it went to the deck..... and how fast it did it.... ;-)

@@shanewaterman4125 - allegedly there is a valley somewhere in the US where a buccaneer went so low to the deck and so close the the valley wall that it left big gouge marks in the sandstone from it's wingtips... so I've read :)

@@SAHBfan that seems...unlikely. going fast enough with wings in contact with sandstone to gouge the stone out would definitely damage the plane.

@@naggie6358 - It is a well known story. I'm sure it did scratch the paintwork...

Also the ugliest jet ever made.

number 1 more like

Well that's one thing we frenchies have in common with you :-)

Umm...let's see....at Taranto a handful of Swordfish one dark night put 3 Italian battleships out of action, two sunk one grounded, and also hit the fleet oil storage depot. A torpedo courtesy of a Swordfish from Ark Royal jammed Bismarck's rudder so badly that Rodney and KGV caught up and sank her. Swordfish with radar, rockets and depth charges, taking advantage of its incredible degree of lift to operate from tiny flight decks on converted merchant ships, seriously inconvenienced the U boats. So yes, slow admittedly, and maybe not the most successful warplane ever (which one was that incidentally ?), but it did not do so badly. Was the hot water kettle at fault because the air pressure at altitude meant that the water boiled below 100 degree C and thus made lousy tea, or was it because the gas ring blew out in the open cockpit ? Just asking.

TheArgieH What the devil is 100 degrees C? Something French? No wonder an honest Brrrritish water kettle was confounded. Brrrritish water cooks at 212 degrees Fahrenheit to make proper Brrrritish tea, YESSSS. Bloody foreigners with their namby pamby decimal scales.

Sorry, sorry, a crass error on my part, Celsius came from one of the northern climes, would you prefer 80 degrees R, something to do with blood and sulphur (definitely not sulfur), I think ? Or maybe, 373.2 degrees Kelvin is better (a good British name) ? Doesn't Fahrenheit sound a tad too mittel European to you ? I thought the drinks heating gear in British military vehicles was called the boiler (implying tea, but also good for bully beef stew and mulligatawny soup) and worked off the exhaust system so why the Swordfish problem ? The Pegasus must have got quite hot. Or as a last resort shoot off the full 9 yards of 303 through the fuselage Vickers maybe ?

TheArgieH It is curious that you should mention the Pegasus engine in conjunction with the splendid Vickers K machine gun, which as we all is the finest machine gun in the world, YEEEEEES. That fellow Browne, the armourer, suggested that using the K in order to make a slight hole in the Pegasus in order to divert some gasoline to boil the kettle might lead to a not entirely reliable flow of combustible substances to the cooker. That, he claims, is responsible for the improperly brewed tea. Dreadful fellow, that Browne. Eats his mushy peas of his knife, you know? And besides, those temporary gentlemen taken up from Trade talk the strangest stuff and nonsense. All I know is that there were times when I was swordfishing in the Denmark Straight when I felt I could murder a hot tin of Mulligatawny - even if it was just a humble tin from Herons or BHS, but all I had was lukewarm tea. Yours sincerely, flt leftenant Steele-Stebbing, RNVR kzfaq.info/get/bejne/kMiVdJhhmbzegmw.html Now that is proper flying.

apud

William Rance Salty that not all British planes are the greatest thing since tea

Who said they were. I was commenting about the narrators voice, Reid. Take care, Bill.

ReidM: But most of these planes were successful and were NOT failures. The video maker ignores context, requirements, mission and makes inappropriate comparisons.

Yes! That was the Guy. Agree with you.

Pelican1984 name me an expample please

Built at the same time as a c130, but had less power, and more weight in addition to being less aerodynamic. It's like saying the sopwith camel was a good aircraft, but if you built it for second world war, its still a pile of out dated crap...

Christian Buczko You are entitled to your opinion, but it was still a good aircraft with a good service record respected by the people who used it. It was amazing we could build anything after being bankrupted by World War 2. We also knew some Javelin pilots from when they were based at RAF Leeming in the late 1950s. They were not as bad as you claim, they were just not special. Ditto the Sea Vixen. The fatalities were mostly down to the way they were operated from carriers. The night attack tactics were flawed and pilots flew into the sea due to disorientation That is a scandal, but it wasn't a fault with the aircraft as such. It was a tactics problem. I don't really care if the C130 could loop the loop frankly. It doesn't make some of the aircraft you have highlighted bad aircraft, just disappointing in some respects.

This video was showing aircraft that were either dangerous, or obsolete when Introduced. The Beverly was obsolete when introduced was my point regardless of whether it was nice to fly. I didn't mention the venom, but again, it was obsolete when it was introduced regardless of tactics, it was slow and poorly designed. Britain did have good designs btw, and we also had bad ones as mentioned in this video. The government back then were incompetents for the most part, not looking at the best aircraft, but trying to prove we could do things which we could not afford. When we did get good designs, like the TSR2, they didn't want them. The TSR2 would have been world class in its day, but they disliked things that looked advanced and at other times pride prevented them from buying decent aircraft from America which is something still happening today. Politicians basically fucked over the FAA and RAF by making decisions about things they knew nothing about. Today its still happening with the F35, which was supposed to cost £35mil each, but now will cost closer to £140mil because it was still unproven when bought, and barely works today.

Christian Buczko TSR2 was a turkey. That's why it got binned. It was at least five years from squadron service when it was binned and it would have been obsolete from day one. In fact just what you are complaining about.

TSR-2 was ahead of anything contemporary American. The Wilson-Callaghan government got the UK so deep in debt that only the US+Germany would pick up their last loan. Among the conditions laid down were buy F111 and C130 and impose £3/week limit on pay rises (in response to monstrous, union-lead pay inflation) - probably among other, unpublished conditions. So that killed off TSR-2 and Short Belfast. The RAF had already received 10 Belfasts and sold them off at this point, only to rent at least one back from Heavy Lift for the Falklands war. Yes, the TSR-2 still had some problems to be addressed, notably undercarriage flutter when landing. Yes, the TSR-2 was late and over-budget. That was largely the fault of the MoD (Air) who kept upping the specification. I suggest a view of Sir Staney Hooker's youtube program here: kzfaq.info?search_query=stanley+hooker

It would look a lot better if it wasn't for the offset cockpit. The rest of the plane looks good but the cockpit looks horrid

The loss rate was nothing unusual for the period.

@@wbertie2604 considering the number built and length of service the fatalities suffered were phenomenal, RIP

Triggers my ocd when I look at it from the front.

The Spitfire gives a lie to that saying, they were produced in big numbers, very good and compared to US fighters cheap, the P 47 was the biggest, heaviest and most expensive single engine fighter, the P 38 was very expensive, even the P 51 which had the Rolls Royce Merlin was expensive. According to USAAF pilots who flew the Spitfire, all other fighters they flew were imperfect in one way or another.

OK @@barrierodliffe4155 Spitfire may well have proved to be the exception to this otherwise consistent rule, but to be fair, much of its development had occurred before the war for those air race competitions. If the ministry had asked for it to be developed from scratch, then I'm sure the engineers would have had to have given the men at the ministry the same 2/3 choice.

@@JoesWebPresence The Spitfire was developed from scratch, just as so many excellent designs were.

Barrie Rodliffe from scratch in 1930s pre war that’s so much different

Barrie Rodliffe the p47 was far more effective than the British attackers none could dogfight as effectively while still having the payload it could carry

This 10 worst list includes 5 very good aircraft.

The award for most obvious comment goes to you.

One Spitfire and one Mosquito makes up for ten flops.

@@sillyone52062 Yet 5 of these 10 were rather good, the Spitfire, Mosquito and quite a lot more were exceptional

@@barrierodliffe4155 Mosquito had its flaws and was a technological dead end. The Spitfire was a bit of a pig to build. Lancaster was of course born out of a failure and had some major flaws like being impossible to escape from when in trouble. Tempest, Hornet and Sea Fury would be the on list as outstanding, though nobody outside the British were interested in the middle one. Where in the 5 of these you mention were they better than their overseas competitors??? I think you will find that they were not in any shape or form, hence the reason that they didn't sell. I would put 5 Military post war British jet aircraft as world beaters. Meteor, Vampire, Venom, Canberra and Hunter. All of them made four figures in production, though the Hunter and Venom were pretty much obsolete by the time that the bugs were ironed out (they both had them in spades). For Airliners, one, the Viscount. The British may have been quite good in WWI, BE2 (did exactly what it was designed to do perfectly, however air to air combat was not in the specification when it was designed), Camel (though a novice pilot killer), SE5A and Bristol F2B Fighter were top notch and some of the bomber designs towards the end were capable aircraft. Interwar, the USA most defiantly caught up and were overtaking the UK. Take for example a certain air race to Australia in 1934. First place was the DH88 Comet built specially for the race, second and third places...Production US airliners!!!! The second placed aircraft a Dutch DC-2 actually carried passengers and mail most of the way on a scheduled KLM route to the Dutch East Indies that was a 1000 miles longer than that flown by the winning DH88 Comet!!! As for WWII aircraft, the list is much more miss than hit.

Oh so the carrier sucked, not the plane.

Audfile wanker

@@Audfile Things brake especially hish stress items, fact.

Audfile but the arrestor wire was made in the US!!!

it has a bad rep for a reason

perhaps more by a Hawker Siddeley or BAC engneer..

probably flew a Blackburn of some kind

By a *Civvie in coordinated clothing*...fixed that for you.

Or someone who hasn't overdosed on tranquilizers!

@@shanewaterman4125 Hmm. It got 9 'likes'

Yeah but at least hae haw was funny for a stooge lol

Tha's sounding british!

JHNielson4851 Yea. And add to that the randomly inserted, unbalanced and unnecessary music.

Painful to listen too as utter shit

I just made a lengthy response to this jerk. America wouldn't be were it is today without the British!

@@jeffhall2958 It bet he really does not give a shit. Not all British planes were good. He has a list like this for most major countries.

That's probably why he didn't put them on this list huh?

You mean the Hawker Harrier V(S)TOL, I presume? Yes, they got many flying machines right. That is not the point. They also got many pilotes killed and reduced the effectiveness of those that survived flying truly horrible machines.

F86 Sabre (1947), and F4J Fury (1954) were in service in several countries up till the mid 90's... 40-50 years, common for US aircraft...

@@wildbill6976 Only because they got sold to developing nations with no budget. Compare with say, the F-101, F-105, F-106, The Cutlass, The Skyray, etc.

Well if we use his excuse the Hawker Hurricane was even worse because it was only in service for 8 years!

@@jayinspain It's almost as if the 30 years between 1930 and 1960 represented a period of incredibly rapid aircraft development or something...

@@malusignatius It's almost like they went through a process of evolution and learning.

To be fair he focusses on the F2 which was British designed and built, but it was little more than a development model for the F3 which he acknowledges was an effective aircraft in its allotted role, long air patrols hundreds of nautical miles out into the North Sea against Soviet bombers and maritime strike aircraft.

Not without issues though, they replaced the whole propeller system after only 3 years service and also replaced the electrical systems with hydraulics.

For starters replacing the prop is a very quick job compared to stripping and overhauling the engine, replacing the electric for hydraulic systems is a 1 time operation. The Scimitar is not a new story in UK military development, Chieftain is my fav story for that one, fact still remains it was a bad aircraft regardless of its reasons. Firebrand, see Scimitar. now onto fact checking, there were to the info I can find 18 Tornado F2 produced with the F2 being accepted into service, the lackluster performance of which prompted development of the F3 for the remaining airframes ordered under the F2, fact still remains that the F2 was accepted into service without important kit or the performance to do it's job.

Watcher; The Beverly is comparable in mission and capabilty to the USAF C-123 Provider with piston engines. Video makes atrocious comparisons.

The only defect with that logic is that the first Beverley was introduced in 1955. The first 230+ C-130's entered service Dec of 1956. That hardly seems like a "decade later".

I realise I have joined late but just thought I would add a couple of bits for consideration. Beverley/Hercules, and several other such aircraft changeovers Tornado/F4, Tsr2/F111 One of the worst deals ever made, we (Aust.) recently retired our F111's. They have cost us Billions, and 10 Crews (Defective TFR) crashes. One flew straight into a bloody great rock pillar sticking up out of the sea near Java. Flying subsonic under radar control, the whole shebang could have come home in a shoebox. Uncle Sams' avionic/radar experts plan was Do not fly on autopilot until advised the system, as fitted to your aircraft, is safe to use. Our Air Force was severely put out. They flew Uh1, B57 & Caribou and had no fighter/GA aircraft to protect and provide air cover for our ANZAC contingent during the entire Vietnam war. What is the connection you may ask, the Lockheed and U.S. Govt. corruption scandal around aircraft sales to allied nations. The cancellation of TSR 2 in particular was viewed as something of a disaster for us as it would have been " Off the shelf" for us.

I remember the Beverly too, and jumped from it as a paratrooper. It served its purpose well enough, though nobody would say it was anything near as good as the later Hercules.

Blackburn Baffin, Blackburn Shark, Blackburn B 2, Blackburn Skua, Blackburn Beverly and Blackburn Buccaneer plus the first British wind tunnel were just some of Blackburn's achievements.

I forget the man's name but a respect American aviator said that aviation development is measured by smoking holes in the ground.

If that was true? Why did the U.K. aircraft industry collapse?

Fairey developed and tested a compound piston engine that would have been able to operate with one bank of cylinders closed down for fuel-saving (a la Mamba turboprop). Fairey's engine was successfully tested and had much more power than the Merlin so it might have been useful when hauling the "Battle" along. It seems that the production of this engine wss squashed in order to favour production of a limited range of already' proven engine-types.

RIP Victorious carrier incident

Anthony He’s talking about the fighter version. F.3........which is no longer in service........replaced in the RAF by the Typhoon. The ground attack version is still in service with the RAF, Luftwaffe and Italian Airforce. The fighter version was a British only development.

captainboggles Absolutely, I was on board HMS Eagle on the last commission when we lost a Sea Vixen and crew immediately after take off, as the guy says they were death traps, 51 aircrew lost!!

And a beautiful piece of British engineering the "Big Bad Bonnie" is. Congrats on owning a bit of truly classic machinery.

Okay, so what were the 10 worst British military aircraft then? If, in fact the Blackburn Beverley could take off and land on shorter runways whilst carrying more airborne troops and equipment than the C130, then why wasn't it close to being as popular and successful of an aircraft as the C130?

@@clintfalk The Beverly was very good for the job it had and served in hot difficult conditions for years. The Sea Vixen which gets a lot of criticism served for 13 years and in combat situations, they lost about 38 %, the F 4 that took over only served for 9 years and they lost 36 %, that does not seem to good or what about the US Navy F 8 88 % had accidents. The Shorts Belfast was better than the C 130, and only 10 were made, the RAF had to lease some of them for the Falklands war since they could carry more further and in flight refueling of the C 130 was a big problem, flat out it was hardly above the stalling speed of the Victor tankers.

It's not only shooting shit up and down that is considered a combat role, you muppet

Flying boat actually, seaplanes have floats and the fuselage is held clear of the water, flying boats have a boat form lower hull/fuselage which does indeed get very wet. Mark you Blackburn did build a hybrid seaplane/flying boat with a retractable hull to lessen drag, and to be fair the Lerwick had a stabilising float on each wing..

But underpowered and nowhere near as good as the Short Sunderland.

David Martin compared to what though

think I should read my comment's before putting them on...... ya fink

Rover Coupe I’ve listened to Buccaneer pilots recount that they could fly so low over the ocean that they almost got their tails wet. Bit of a tall tale, but obviously a very stable and reliable aircraft.

They even used Buccaneers in the first Gulf War, with no losses. Britons do make excellent aircraft, actually.

There is nothing to do what the Buccaneer could do even today, even with expensive computer systems

If I remember right, the buccaneers were untouched at Red Flag whenever they attended

Anyone who says the Buccaneer was a bad bomber or aeroplane in general just doesn't know what they're talking about.

Hi Gary, I have already made all the videos you suggested and they can be found on this channel. Enjoy :-)

Please credit Marcel Dassault for this aeronautical saying. And God knows many of his creations were as good looking as good flying, and still are (the Mirage 2000 and above all the Rafale). Let me precise that being French, I usually have very little reasons to be proud of my country.

Slightly undermined by that Breda heavy fighter that looked great but couldn't always even get airborne!

He does say that in the video..

@@krashd He doesn't say that there were very few F 2's made, they were used to train pilots for the F 3 and to develop the radar.

Well, it helps to drown out the tedious, unfunny and rather witless voiceover.

As an ancient RAF "JARIC Airman" from the fifties, I agree that it was slow, noisy, and bumpy, but you omitted the uncomfortable seats and if you were unfortunate enough to cadge a rearmost boom seat next to the " Drop hatch ", as I did from Cyprus to UK via Malta and Nice, wearing summer khakies, ( Shirt and shorts ), The wash from the propellers including the exhaust fumes and noise came through the almost one inch gaps in the hatch like a freezing hurricane right up your shorts.... most uncomfortable on a 13 hour journey compounded by a problem with the starboard engine. Luckily I managed to get the trip back in a RAF Comet Freighter, ( fortunately with no windows, you know the reasons why.....) Four hours from Northolt Airport to the then Nicosia Airport, then a Heron to Akrotiri.... almost luxury. The best I can say about the Beverly is! It got me there........

Watched one doing circuits and bumps at Benson during the 1960s. When the driver opened up to take her round again my fillings shook. Once seen and heard never forgotten.

@@TheArgieH As an airman who has done many miles in a Beverley in the 50s. it wasn't just the engines and propwash that made your fillings shake, it was also the fuselage panels that would vibrate like crazy under full throttle torque. And you suffered as a spectator? try being inside one in those circumstances where the sound was directed to the inside areas.

@@carlmcvey6451 Thanks for that. Was this the origin of the description "A collection of rivets flying in close formation"? Guess it could apply to a few, I've heard it applied to a Shackleton that was getting a bit long in the tooth.

@@TheArgieH Just out of interest, I belonged to JARIC. ( JOINT AIR RECONNAISSANCE INTELLIGENCE CENTER ). There was a small JARIC detachment at the far end of Benson, recognized by being totally enclosed by many layers of coiled barbed wire and 24 hour guards. It was home to many tons of top secret films from WW2 action, even the C.o. of Benson was not allowed in, only personnel with " US/UK Eyes only" classification. Before flying off to Cyprus in mid fifties, I was sent there to oversee decommissioning it and incinerate certain films and drain away more that 100 gallons of pure 100% ethyl alcohol which was used in the film processing plant there.Yes, The only spirit that can be consumed. I am sure the maintenance skeleton staff were aware of this as the amount drained was less than the records showed! but I just wanted to get it done and head for Jaric Cyprus......Oh happy days.

If it weren't for US, it probably wouldn't have... =P

@@wildbill6976 If it wasn't for Britain Germany would have won and USA would have done nothing.

A VERY dangerous bird...

Looks like the UK jet fighter Vampire

@@sirandrelefaedelinoge Safer than the F 8 or F 104 by a long way, lower loss rate than the F 4 too.

The Swordfish destroyed more enemy shipping than any other allied aircraft, and was in service right through the war. Clearly, an utter failure.

Adrian Larkins yep! The Fairy Battle was a disaster, although it did “win” a V.C. (Post) for a poor crew during the Blitzkrieg! Every nation has produced bad aircraft, however Britain was notorious for designing bad armoured vehicles as well.

@@alexwilliamson1486 Bad armoured like the Matilda at the start of the war that was impervious to German anti tank guns and gave the Germans a fright, a pity there were not more of them at the time or what about the Comet at the end of the war and a few in between that were very good? Then there is the excellent Bren gun carrier that was used so much and many of them survived the war. Britain even had to improve the American Sherman which was a real clunker in so many ways.

Fairey designed and successfully tested pre-war a piston aero-engine that worked on the "Mamba" set-up whereby half of the engine (along with half of the contra-prop) could be shut down for cruising. Such an engine in the "Battle" could have saved a few lives but Fairey were told to discontinue development.

The Beverly's misfortune was to have come into service at the same time as the Hercules. Few if any aircraft categories have been as dominated by one plane as Hercules did cargo. Hard for any other transport to look good by comparison. (Only B-52 for bombers comes to mind.)

Just looking at the number of break downs when the aircraft were moving equipment belonging to another unit gives some idea of how good an aircraft actually is. 41 Squadron RAF operated the Bloodhound Mk 2 missile system in a transportable role during the late 1960's. In 1967 the squadron deployed a missile section to Libya for an exercise (a couple of years before the coup there). Every load carried by a Beverley on that trip had the aircraft break down on route.

Pip, Pip. Cheerio. I say. Luv to the Mrs. .

Delighted to hear that.

Starfighter did have a bad crash record (mainly due to very high takeoff and landing speeds) but at least it had phenomenal performance. It shattered all speed and climb records when it was introduced. The British aircraft in this video were dangerous AND had miserable performance.

Sith Lord true

Sith Lord it also had quite a bad bribery record

Spain had no issue with the F104 while the Germans loved turning them into law darts.

James- the Lockheed blackbird was also totally lethal, particularly the one with a stick-on drone.

Lord_Edge the tornado was never a good fighter. It was ok as a figther f16 or f15 better

tree rat76 The Tornado ADV was never a fighter full stop, it was an interceptor, different role entirely. It's job was to fly out and meet Russian bombers and turn them away from the UK (or if necessary destroy them). It was an excellent replacement for the F-4 and did it's job great for 30 years, like I said the only other option would have been to buy F-15s which would have done the same job while costing a lot more.

I think you're confusing your ADV with your IDS

It never was a fighter, so to compare it to these aircraft is foolish... The actual aircraft was designed to loiter and then shootdown vast distances. On the various military exercises I was on with this aircraft, it's excelled when it was allowed to do what it was designed to do. This guy is been watching too many videos with people you don't know what they're talking about

@Lee Williams, nope the ADV was the interceptor (the plane the video and tree rat76 seem to think was shit because it wasn't great at stuff it wasn't supposed to do) and the IDS was the ground attack/strike aircraft. Both planes performed excellently in their intended roles.

Oh God yes! It is absolutely awesome. Never seen another twin boom jet aircraft like it, certainly don't recall one anyway. I've always loved p38's and similar designs, they're just beautiful. And look as if they're going 500mph sitting still. It's also a bit along the lines of the old flying wing concepts, before they lost the tail, of course. Too bad governments don't just throw money at what looks the best. There'd still be fleets of these prowling the skies.

True, comparing Blackburn to say Lockheed or Grumman is just damned fucking stupid, it's like saying 10 British boxers who were crap, Nas Hamed couldn't beat Tyson in a fight..........no shit Sherlock different wieght divisions. It's as though he's deliberately stupid for the sake of one video.

Yeah if you want a fair US comparison to Blackburn I'd suggest Brewster.

Blackburn has made some rather bad planes... but also the Buccaneer, which in its prime was better then anything of its type.

The oldest flying British aircraft is a Blackburn, so they weren't all bad.

I just thought it might be nice to defend Blackburn. I'm not sure how many great aircraft you are personally responsible for designing, but I'm very proud of my great uncle Bob and his accomplishments.

You should have put " fantastic F4 Phantom once it was powered by Rolls-Royce engines " I still remember seeing one up close as an Air Cadet in Scotland, and then watching 2 take off late evening for a patrol flight. Awesome sight

I couldn't agree with you more, once they put the Rolls Royce Spey engines in, it made it possible for Phantom's to take off from the Royal Navy's smaller Carriers, and like you, I managed to see Phantom's taking off, and the sight and sound was fantastic, nowadays, I'm disabled, and I build model kits to give myself something to do, and my favourite Aircraft kit to build, is the F4 Phantom

Then the British bought c-130’s.

The point of the comparison between the Beverley and the C-130 is that the Herculese is still in use today by many of the worlds airforces - the Beverley is not and was force fed to countries of Britains ex- empire. I believe the Beverley gave good service while it was around but it had no longevity. A similar situation applied when airlines were looking for a DC3 replacement. Two main contenders outside of the US. The HP Hearald and the Fokker Friendship. The Fokker went on to become one of the worlds great mediam haul passenger AC while the Hearald died a well deserved death. Personally, I prefered the Hearalds athletics, but there you are.

Talwin Darkmorr Ian Stevenson is right- the addition of spey engines, as well as being a costly exercise , actually resulted in a decrease in all areas of the Phantom's performance, except in range. The spey was undoubtedly a terrific engine, but not the best for the Phantom's airframe. It did boost British jobs of course

TOM WHITE As well as Concorde (see below) .. "Sir James Hamilton: Aircraft designer who led the British Concorde development team" It was first conceived by the British in November 1956 (STAC) ... the Russians and the French became interested in 1959.) "March, 1959 - STAC report recommends the UK develop long-range supersonic transport with design studies for two supersonic airliners, one to fly at a speed of Mach 1.2 and the other at Mach 2.0 (twice the speed of sound). Bristol Airoplane Company and Hawker Siddeley Aviation are commissioned for the preliminary designs, which are developed as the HSA.1000 and Bristol 198. The government and the STAC group look for major partners to help develop the designs. STAC by the way was a British committee set up in 1956 to look into the feasibility of supersonic airliner production." (STAC = Supersonic Transport Aircraft Committee - British!) www.thehistorypress.co.uk/articles/concorde-chronology/ 1 Supermarine Spitfire - What can I say that I haven't already in other threads, the most beautiful killing machine ever built and a national treasure. 2 De Havilland Mosquito - this high speed bomber carried the same payload as standard medium bombers like the Wellington and even early series B-17's and yet was the fastest military aeroplane in the world too. Introduced the modern concept of a strike aircraft for the first time. 3 Avro Lancaster - heaviest bomb load carrier of the entire war, i.e from the beginning (just matched by the B-29 in 1945) this versatile bomber flew every type of raid from high altitude strategic bombing to such as the dambusters raid at just 60ft. 4 English Electric Canberra - the first British jet bomber, designed to replace the Mosquito it inherited that types fighter like handling and high performance, though that advantage was short lived in the jet age. So impressive was the Canberra that a trio of US bomber prototypes were scrapped and the Canberra adopted by the USAF who still flew it on combat missions in the Vietnam war, one of the all time greats. 5 BAC Lightning - Fastest aircraft ever flown by the RAF, (mach 2+ with a climb rate of 60,000 feet per minute!)) this was both the worlds only pure interceptor fighter and the world's fastest climbing interceptor until the F-15 entered service 15 years after it, proof of what the UK Industry might have achieved if it had been allowed to develop. 6 BAC TSR 2 - Yes, only one of these was ever flown, but that was not the fault of the aircraft. A mach 2.5 (mach 3 depending on engine development) long range strike bomber this aircraft was the most advanced in the world by a mile when it flew in 1965, in many ways it was superior to the Tornado which was built in its place ten years later and would almost certainly STILL be the standard RAF strike aircraft today ( in a developed form) had it progressed to service instead of being cancelled. 7 Hawker Siddeley Harrier - just as the F-15 has remained virtually untouched for thirty years, so it is with the Harrier, the only one of a plethora of VSTOL fighter projects of the 50's 60's and 70's to be successfully deployed into service. Later further developed by HSA and McDonnell Douglas (BAE and Boeing) even today's GR.9 is still basically the same aircraft that flew in 1966 as the P.1127RAF. The Harrier was inspired by the World's first VTOL aircraft, the British Shorts SC.1 which flew for over ten years, during which it provided a great deal of data that served to influence later design concepts such as the "puffer jet" controls on the Hawker Siddeley P.1127, the precursor of the Hawker Siddeley Harrier. The flight testing work relating to vertical takeoff and landing techniques and technologies also proved to be invaluable, and helped further Britain's lead in the field. The Shorts SC.1 was ultimately rendered obsolete by the emerging Harrier which, amongst other things, proved that it was unnecessary to carry an additional four engines solely for the purposes of lift-off and landing. 8. BAE Hawk - an unusual choice in that it was designed and developed as a trainer, the Hawk has been one of the outstanding success stories of the UK industry over the last 30 years. It is the mount of the Red Arrows of course, it is the standard trainer of the USN, beating several home grown US designs to win the order. But it is also an excellent light tactical fighter that is available in both single seat and two seat forms and can carry a greater weapons load than a Canberra bomber, despite being less than 1/3 the size and single engined. 9 Hawker Hurricane - underrated and often forgotten contemporary of the Spitfire, it was more manoeuverable and much easier to build and repair. The Hurricane shot down more enemy aircraft in the Battle of Britain than all other defences combined, it was also versatile serving as a ground attack aircraft with bombs and rockets and as a tankbuster with heavy calibre cannon, served throughout WW2 on several fronts. 10 Blackburn Buccaneer - very advanced low level strike aircraft designed for the Royal Navy, employed 'machined from solid' construction which avoided fatigue failures and allowed for extreme manouverability at low level, was the first aircraft to use blown flaps for STOL operations allowing it to be operated from Britain's small carrier decks despite being almost as long as a Lancaster. Foisted upon an unwelcoming RAF after the cancellation of the F-111K, it proved itself to be the better aircraft and much faster at low level than the US type, leading one RAF Buccaneer pilot to be quoted as saying, upon the receipt of the very first RAF Tornadoes in 1982, "the only acceptable replacement for a Buccaneer is a new Buccaneer.

We bloody invented the jet!

@@urbanmidnight1Doesn't mean we didn't make some right duds ! To be fair he DOES cover the 10 worst AMERICAN 'planes too ;)

@@rogerstorrs8679 yeah but I bet that video isn't as passive aggressive as this video

And just as accurate! snort.

Fifth column strikes again!

Fake accent.

@@urbanmidnight1 must be a bloody German who still mourns about a lost race in aviation after ww2

Paul Hellawell - It is said that Springfield's Nelson Muntz is a descendent of Lord Hawhaw.

simlar comment could be applied to Vulcan vrew other than the pilots - only ones with bang seats.

True, the rest of the crew had to use the access hatch to "leave" the aircraft.