My dad actually worked at Armstrong Whitworth in Coventry (actually Baginton on the outskirts) during the second world war as a teenager, living literally at the end of Baginton airfields runway in "The Row" he spoke of the flying wing that was being developed during the war.

@Jlocko67

2 ай бұрын

I used to go to the Air Cadet Squadron at Baginton Airport (as it was) in the 80's. Infact I used to live in Binley and on the approach to the airport so had amazeballs views on airshow days.

@paulvernon4160

2 ай бұрын

@@Jlocko67 we used to go to my uncles who took over my dad's family home in the row, he also had the allotments so we used climb over the fence and go onto the airfield during airshow for free. This was in the early to mid 70s, fun times

@MoparMissileDivision

2 ай бұрын

@@paulvernon4160 Those were the "Good old days" my friend! It's hard to believe I can remember those days like it was yesterday and now we are the "Old geezer's"!😂🖖✌

@paulvernon4160

2 ай бұрын

@@MoparMissileDivision I'm not so old, I'm carrying on until I'm 100, so just over half way😜

I found out the hard way that the A.W. 52 had a problem with wing tip flutter. I built a semi-scale R/C model with twin ducted fans that had a 16 foot wingspan and It flew beautifully until I got comfortable with it's handling characteristics and got the CG set, then I really started experimenting with stability at high angles of attack at low speeds and what it's top speed was! It flew fine at full throttle in level high speed passes, but as soon as I climbed to a higher altitude and put her nose down, she accelerated past VNE and both wingtips started to flutter so violently that they shed their skins and literally blew apart! Now that I have all of the templates for every part, I am going to build another one, make it as light as possible and build it right from the start as a "Giant scale park flyer" that will be hand launched and belly landed in grass or on any halfway smooth level surface and is designed to fly at low speeds.

@TheRoulette77

2 ай бұрын

ive been building high speed flying wings for 20 years ...ive had some of the same issues , adding reflex to the main section of the wings trailing edge and wash out (upward-twist) to the wing tips solved it for me up to about 100mph... it makes the construction much more difficult than a flat plainer design but works a charm... no matter how strong (even carbon spar fiberglass wings ) you get high speed flutter without having wing tip wash out incorporated into the design... the tip washout and reflex prevents flutter by aerodynamically tensioning the wing when under high speed load...the twist will straighten out giving the wing tension when under the stress... this will get you further to the edge of the envelope.. but, then you will get to elevon compressibility and hinge load limits ....and you start needing to have a split in the elevons to accommodate the wing twist...hats off to you for going for a 16' wingspan..that's a big build. i smiled in thinking that it should have enough lift to fly you !!!

@michaelbamfield1385

2 ай бұрын

7 hi hi u v4 no by v4

@ThePaulv12

2 ай бұрын

That's wild that it transferred to a model at normal barometric pressure. Great story. Cheers for posting.

@jimthurman2571

2 ай бұрын

​@@TheRoulette77😅

It's a shame no one had the foresight to save it as a museum piece.

@paulbarnett227

2 ай бұрын

I was thinking the same thing.

The Horten brothers were primarily flying wing and glider enthusiasts. Their Horten IV had amazing performance (at least on paper), and the Horten VI was even more extreme. I saw the unrestored Horten IV in the Deutsches Museum, they are miracles of extremely delicate wooden construction. The wing ribs 0.6mm plywood with COPIOUS cutouts with 5x5mm pine strips left and right, top and bottom and a few vertical and diagonal 5x5mm stiffeners. When the reinforcing strips came undone (as it does at a an 80 year old airplane), the upright standing rib bent around almost 180 degrees. But as a whole, it was absolutely sufficient. They had invented the bell-curve lift distribution combined with a swept wing, with that they were the ony ones that could produce a flying wing without any vertical stabillizers. The Ho-229 was in principle a good idea for a country desperately short of metal. But I heard that that what the Horten brothers delivered was more in its one-off glider tradition and a far cry from a robust, simple, mass-producable cronstruction. So the project was more or less taken over by the Gothaer Waggonfabrik, not only experience in rail cars ("Waggon"), but also in license-building military airplanes. The naming change to Go-229, and they overworked the design.

Very interesting. I had never heard of this aircraft. Thank you for introducing me to it.

An aircraft that decided that it did not want to crash when the pilot ejected. That does not sound like a failure, it sounds like a success in stability.

what a neat video. thanks for creating this. I love it!

The tragedy of the segment was scrapping a functional experimental aircraft. Since the design tested many 1sts simultaneously, there were probably unthought of questions that could have been answered without starting from scratch, again.

Narration speed is much better now! Hang on, great work!

@GenePoolChlorinator

2 ай бұрын

It just has better laminar flow.

The guy riding shotgun on an experimental jet with no ejection seat... that's a lot of trust...

I love watching the history of aviation a born and bred Englishman, I take great pride in seeing the innovation, knowledge and expertise that we had in the UK, but the flipside of that is seeing how we’ve let all our innovation skills pretty much die off if we wanted to do something like this shown in this video today we would be hard to do it on our own without having to go begging and crawling to other countries for help which somewhat upsets me bring back the glory days, bring back the brilliant days when Britain used to lead the world in innovation and technology not to go, asking or beg borrow or buy

05:25 180,000 lbs ?? Someone screwed up here, that's twice the weight of a 737 ! Maybe 18,000 lbs ?

@JustPlaneChris

2 ай бұрын

Since he's reading almost verbatim from the Wikipedia entry on the A.W.52, there's no telling who actually made the mistake. ;)

Very interesting thanks.

A refreshing episode and very enjoyable...I have never heard of this aircraft. It's quite baffling the British did not further take the project to fruition as they had the technology in their hands. 😎

@dishusse

2 ай бұрын

Britain was more or less bankrupt after WW II.

@pirobot668beta

2 ай бұрын

Another British 'super weapon' had a serious problem with flying-wing designs. Depending on the incoming angle, flying-wings were essentially invisible to RADAR. Stealth tech, unintended. That's why the US flying-wings were destroyed in broad daylight...stealth technology was considered too inflammatory during the Cold War.

legends of risk aversion.

Cool! This flying wing could fly backwards!!

It seems that several of these early Flying Wing pioneers were way head of their time and it was the lack of technology that just wasn't developed to achieve their goals...Great video..

From the very start the UK has a reputation of building nice looking or interesting aircraft (Upgrade and bring back the Vulcan), and putting them into production, sometimes to their chagrin as long term bugs were uncovered, but sometimes you just can't get All the bugs out so you do your best. Then the research and production cost got incredibly Stupid and they no longer can afford to do all the aerial magic they used to. P.S., I'm also a big fan of German aircraft, their over-engineering was beautiful, a true connoisseurs delight.

Armstrong Whitworth were *not* flying a twinjet aircraft on May 30th 1940, which is what the soundtrack says! The engines and the ejection seat didn't exist then. Possibly there's confusion with May 30th 1949, when the ejection happened? The glider prototype first flew in March 1945.

@wolfmauler

2 ай бұрын

Sure wish we would've had a couple of those prototypes kicking around in 1940 😉

It must have been a Pilot Induced Oscillation as the aircraft resumed stabile flight without pilot input.

@pommunist

2 ай бұрын

The centre of gravity would have changed considerably when the pilot earned his tie

Is it a true flying wing if it has rudders? Not trying to make a point, just curious.

HOLY FUC IT FLYS BACKWARDS!!!!!! 9:58 !!!

@zh84

2 ай бұрын

I think it's just being passed by a faster aircraft with a camera on board.

@persistentwind

2 ай бұрын

When you're all out of b-roll just play it backwards!

Love the Horten wing aircraft

what a cool plane

Never knew about this aircraft only the Horton brothers and the American efforts in the 60's

@wilburfinnigan2142

2 ай бұрын

dave-h Also overlooked was the war tome and post war development of Jack Northrop whose design of the piston and jet powered flying wing whose demise was political only to be revived decades later as the Northrup B1 flying wing !!!!!

@lancerevell5979

2 ай бұрын

Northrop B-2 Spirit.

What a truly beautiful airplane. In all honestly I only found out about these aircraft a couple of weeks ago. It's such a shame that Armstrong ditched the idea and slowly slid into obscurity before vanishing completely. Unfitting end for a once mighty forwards looking company.

Looks like the grandpa to our beloved B2 Spirit.

Imagine the Horton bros. & Kelly Johnson hookin up?!?!

I loved the Horton brothers planes. There is no telling how much history would have changed if they had 1 more year. The flying wing design and the styles like the sr71 black bird is so cool. When you find out how old the designs for them are and when they were built.

@flakmag1004

2 ай бұрын

even if they'd have 3 more years the outcome would be no different to our outcome. a loss.

@skunkbucket9408

2 ай бұрын

Personally, I'm glad they didn't get that extra year.

@nickhorten97

2 ай бұрын

HORTEN not HortOn.

@mikep490

2 ай бұрын

IIRC it was the advancement of electronics that made a flying wing practical. Sometimes a design is simply years ahead of it being practical. With props too much turbulence is set up and jet/rocket engines were dangerous. Even today engineers marvel that they got the wing "just right" in the Ho 229... though it worked better as a glider. If an engine(s) failed it'd crash.

@dannyhull8007

2 ай бұрын

Are you drinking your bathwater? Where does this have ANY relation to the SR71??

An ejection has to be a kin to a near death cross-over experience. Imagine the SR 71 ejection. Ejecting at speeds where the air can melt metals. It will probably be safer if you encased the piolet in a ejectable pod. A pod is feasible. Maybe have the flight controls also control the parachute / para glider. It could be done.

Small challange Flying rc version but its looks & performance are like no other .

"sire, we've missed our intended landing zone." "Silence, we are going to engage reverse.......full thrust!!!!!!!!!" *Collective panic*

The Martin Baker Mk1 was not rocket assisted. The Mk7 of the 1960s was the first one to use it I believe.

You have it backwards: the flying wing is the original. The Wright Brothers airplane was a flying wing with verticle and horizontal stabilizers not attached to a fuselage. The pilot sat on the wing. The Wright Flyer evolved from pure wing kites. The problem was making a aircraft that was strong, light and controllable by a man. As far as I can recall the first true wing to do this was the Northrop N9M. It wasn't a pure wing as the propeller shaft fairings acted as vertical stabilizers. The 1st successful pure wing is the Northrop B2. Advances in computer flight control allowed for no vertical structures or accessory wings as in the Wright Flyer. There were many attempts at flying wings from the beginning of manned flight, but the seeming advantage of less drag always has drawbacks. By the middle of the 20th century the major obstacle was stability under human control and the impossibility of recovery when departing from the flight envelope. Impossibility of recovery is not solvable (at least I don't know any solution). The problems make a cometcial pure wing an unlikely production success. Boeing looked at replacing the 747 with a flying wing and these had no horizontal stabilizer, but did have a vertical stabilizer and a fuselage (to carry passengers and cargo). Boeing's conclusion was that such an aircraft was viable, but the development costs would never be recovered when competing with conventional airliners.

strange aircrafts create their own feat

it had to be A LOT of "dirt" on the wing to lose that much lift and add that more drag.

Your aviation videos are always very interesting, even if the pictures don't accurately represent the commentary (there were Vampires andMeteors creeping in at various points)🙂. I know that pronunciation of English names is something of a minefield for Americans so, just for future reference, Farnborough is pronounced more like 'Farnburrer'

@Sonoma_Coast

2 ай бұрын

I think it's an automated voice.

@BariumCobaltNitrog3n

2 ай бұрын

@@Sonoma_Coast It's horrible.

How is 1945 YEARS AHEAD of 1940? England was testing ejection seats during the Battle Of Britain??

@bionicgeekgrrl

2 ай бұрын

Technology moved at a very rapid rate during the 40s however, what was ground breaking in 1940 was obsolete in 45.

@aalhard

2 ай бұрын

@@bionicgeekgrrl that is exactly the point. It's not years ahead, it's Tuesday. Read the rest of my comment. He put the Witworth in 1940.... Then said how advanced horten was even though England supposedly had wings with ejection seats half a decade before....

@trance9158

2 ай бұрын

​@@aalhardthey had gliders

This was a time when lots of learning was going on. Swept wings No tail experiment Experimental airfoil Newer jet engines Ejection seats Hard to believe it wasn’t an immediate success 😉 Lots of new things in a new package.

Exactly. Not much sign of rapid iteration in design development there . . . foreknowledge, perhaps. Thanks. 😎

Waxing a little too nostalgic for these oddball birds, how about remembering the Vought Flying Pancake next time- only try being less syrupy!

But did the Martin Baker ejection seat Dave his life? Kinda left that out.

@robertpatrick3350

2 ай бұрын

No it was covered near the end

Very interesting, but you missed out on perhaps the most successful flying wing design from 1935,….the Waterman Aerobile. It’s interesting that the featured flying wing glided down once de powered, because the Aerobile had exactly the same characteristic, not able to be stalled under low or no power. There is a flight sim parameter set for the Aerobile, and I have flown it FX10. Boring to fly but extremely safe. Needless to say I am a huge fan of Waldo Waterman and his Aerobile which flies to this day in the Smithsonian above my other favourite aircraft, the Super Constellation.

thank you . ( 2024 / Mar / 23 )

A blistering 320 mph. 😂

What's eerie is look at the Horten flying wing. I see a B2 spirit. You cannot tell me those designs came about by accident. Different engineers solving the same problem, sure. Too bad Horton didn't have the avionics to make their dream fly.

@trance9158

2 ай бұрын

It did 3 times for test flights

Why is the plane flying backwards in some shots? 😁 E.g. 5:30 or 9:59

Horten here's a WHAT? Dunne and done! (Burgess actually). I have been reminding this pioneer design for years....Canada's first military aircraft (almost).

Got a notice.

"later technologies". It took until the B-2 bomber for a flying wing that was really stable.

The featured wing aircrafts are the predecessors of the B2 Spirit stealth bomber: " The boomerangs".

The flying wing depicted in the video is clearly a post war aircraft and not a modified Hurricane, so it couldn't have been 1940. You are confusing the jet powered aircraft with the glider, which may have owed something to the Hurricane.

It's no wonder it had problems getting off the ground. It sat flat. A longer nose gear would have helped.

Sounds like flutter might have led to PIO.

Check out the Celeron 500

Did he say 1940???

How come The Martin Baker people have never gotten a Noble Prive?

At the beginning it should say May 30, 1949, not May 30, 1940

blistering 320 mph?

If flying wings had a performance advantage we'd see them in production now.

@christianbuczko1481

2 ай бұрын

Theres one in service, and another being developed and tested currently. So they cant be that bad..

3:11 That’s NOT an older Hitler without the mustache.

The designer must have shared brain waves with Jack Northrup.

Looks like Mosquito tail fins on there!

Your video starts off talking about a flight in 1940 which at the end you say happened in 1952. WTF.

Should have said " laminar flow " 20 or 30 more times.

Describing any aircraft as "Ground breaking" does not inspire confidence.

@bitrage.

18 күн бұрын

LMFAO!!!! 😂😂😂 Comedy Gold!

And all the work of Jack Northrop during a and post war was overlooked, yet today the Northrup BI flies !!!!

@lancerevell5979

2 ай бұрын

Northrop B-2 actually.

@martykarr7058

2 ай бұрын

@@lancerevell5979 Which has the same wingspan as the YB-49, it's predacessor.

@Catlover777ful

2 ай бұрын

The B-1 was built by North American-Rockwell and is certainly NOT a flying wing design. Do you get it now????

⭐🙂👍

Looks like a british copy of the Horten 9

How about the Handley Page 115 flown by Neil Armstrong… it’s not a pretty plane… but interesting.

They didn't have neens for the 2nd prototype because they gave them to the ussr.

It was an interesting idea, but this research plane didn't solve the stability issue of flying wings, especially the yaw stability. This was the same issue that made the Northrup XB-35 and XB-49 difficult to fly. (Interestingly, the Horton Brothers managed to get it to work, using a fairly complex system of flap and aileron controls. The Ho 229 V2 actually flew well but crashed due to engine issues with the Jumo 004 turbojet engine.)

Laminar flow... laminar flow... laminar flow...

"cumulus clouds providing intermittent shelter" WTF?

Seekers Among timers

1940? Really? How have I never heard of this plane?

1940?

First aircraft sounds like it suffered from PIO on its last flight.

@christopherrobinson7541

2 ай бұрын

PIO can lead to flutter. The pilot leaving the aircraft moves the C of G aft which in a conventional aircraft reduces stability, but enhances it in a flying wing, tailless aircraft.

I see someone chose Edgar, the overly dramatic, breathy, everything-is-so-serious computer voice to narrate ChatGTFO's script.

That was very cool. I never really knew about this British flying wing before. At least I don't remember it? I only knew of, Northrup and the Horton brothers. I don't remember seeing this thing? It certainly seemed awesome for the time. And saddened to see it fail. After all it was those, British blokes. That came up with, our jet engines. Both of those guys had been knighted. With Sir Frank Whittle. For their contributions. I mean how cool is that? As I'm just a Yankee. These flying wings, continue to amaze. After all. Aren't some of the UFOs also built like these? I think so? Big flying, V's and Triangular platforms. Yup. And if it's good enough for the UFOs? It's good enough for us! Of course I don't know how many of those they saw flying back then? Compared to the flurry we have today, on radar and all that, we now see firm smart phones. And so these flying wings were not created by any of these guys. They all saw something else fly. Something that wasn't supposed to be there. And it gave them an idea! As the man have also been, slightly intoxicated at the time? Drinking was a lot more popular back then. Everybody did it. It was a social thing, this alcoholism. Who knows what these guys may have seen? (Hickup)… are you seeing that Frank? There is nothing there. Well… Armstrong… there was a second… ago (hiccup). And only Jim Northrup got the contract from the US Military. Cool history. Thanks! RemyRAD

This aircraft appears to have been inspired by the Northrop XB-35/YB-35 and YB-49 designs. Not all that strange, even for it's time - and given the B-2 and B-21, arguably not strange at all.

@obi-ron

2 ай бұрын

Maybe you should look up the Tizzard Mission and find out who provided technological knowledge to whom during ww2. Britain gave the US radar, jet tech, asdic (sonar) the specs for the P51 Mustang, tank tech and collaborations (Sherman firefly) and a lot of other stuff, including the nuclear secrets of a project called Tube Alloys that was absorbed into the Manhatten Project.

@bricefleckenstein9666

2 ай бұрын

@@obi-ron Does not affect my comment. Yes, I'm aware of the Tizzard mission - and how much you're OVERSTATING what the Brits gave to the US under that mission (Radar and Jet Technology, granted - SONAR went BOTH ways, and the P51 was ALREADY in development when that mission happened, we had already licensed the Allison version of the Merlin BEFORE that mission, and we didn't want anything to do with the Firefly - which you fail to note WE gave the BRITS the underlying Sherman design among others). We already had the Manhatten project underway, Tube Alloys mostly provided some indication of the best way to separate Uranium-235 (we ALREADY had all 3 methods in production by then). But the POINT I was making was that Northrop had flying wing designs DURING THE WAR in the "already build and testing" stage, the A.W. 52 was POST war.

*Flying Wings are BEST for carrying HEAVY WEIGHT and should never be build for speed! If you want speed build a DART shaped plane.*

1940? Loks more like 1950 to me.

🇺🇸👍👍👍👍👍

Funny, when he started talking about laminar airfoils, the airfoils shown were anything else than laminar. The first mass-produced plane with a laminar wing was the P-51 Mustang, I have heard that the wings were fillered and sanded. Probably only the leading edge was treated so when the airflow changed from laminar to turbulent you do not need such exactness anymore. (unavoidable, when then pressure gets lower, usually when the wing gets thinner, you have this change. Therefore laminar wings have the maximum thickness rather far backward, usually at about 60% of the wing chord, while "conventional" airfoils have it as 25-35%). I would love to see a Mustang wing in unpainted shape, and whether they pulled that completely through or gave it up during the production: "Modern" Mustangs seem to be bare metal - but who needs maximum performance today?

1940?…..

Farnborough is Farn-braa not Farn-bro. Just one of those odd British things.

The subtitling saying this happend in 1940 is REALLY not good...

1940?! How about 1947.

WW2 German Blocke & Koch, no, Horton were, flying wing technology, 'attained'. Whoopsies - back to the drawing board, methinks. More rate control gyroscopes please! 1940? No, 1950 probably.

1940 isn’t 1949. The number of errors in your work degrades your reputation. Do better.

Laminar flow wings are useless in providing lift cause they have a large curve underneath to make the upward curve practically useless! Didn't these idiots realise this? The whole reason to create lift is buy the upward surface having more camber!!

Tricky design concept.

Одни и те же кадры в начале и в конце ролика. Затяжка времени...

Music is still to much

13:15 Haahahahahaahahaha🤣

Complimentary algorithm enhancement comment!😊

Everyone was working on jet and flying wings during WW2. The British developed the jet engine and so did Germany before the war, the U.S. had an engine, however it was low powered and too bulky. The British developed the first jet, but the Germans were the first to put one in combat. The U.S. built a monstrosity of a jet aircraft in 1942 that was useless, the P-59B. The U.S. also built by Northrop in 1942 a flying wing that was successful and flew until 2019 when it crashed, The N-9M. Neither of the two American aircraft had any good military use, so they never went into production.

Please remove the muzak

The backround music sucks