I once met a pilot who flew the Blackburn Firebrand. A victim of ministry despotism of the time, he was ordered to test fly the new aircraft with a massive torpedo underslung. To gain the lift required from the load, on the short wingspan available, the massive engine torque applied quite simply defeated any wing ability to resist, resulting in an uncontrollable roll as he climbed. Sensibly, he jettisoned the problem (over the Wash as it happened).
It's too bad tax payers had to fund these things. Any time you put the gov't in charge (ANY gov't) it's going to use the money inefficiently. Using investors and private funds, the costs are usually watched much closer. If the idea is bad or even risky from the beginning, it just would not get the funding in the first place. Taxpayers have no say where they money is going.
I'll give the -104 some cred. Aside from maneuverability, it matched the EE Lightning at a cheaper price, even without the bribes. What urks me in the cancelling of the SR.177. That had potential, especially if they swapped out that gas-guzzling Gyron Jr.
For the short-sighted cost savings, Britain is a pathetic shadow of its former self. The U.S. is totally gutted out and will follow Britain into ignominy. Britain and America's epitaph, "It was cheaper to buy it from a foreign supplier". Low cost carries a high price.
Hardly a death-trap. Death-trap would be the Blackburn Firebrand, where the service deliberately discredited pilots who spoke out about its deadly vices. Osprey is just something that has never actually seen service before. If we passed up on it, we might as well passed up all new designs and we'd still be flying cloth covered biplanes.
Osprey has been in development for a quarter of a century! How many more personnel have to die in the damned thing before it's scrapped as a fundamentally bad design?
Great footage of some very rare aircraft, especially the SR.53. The Brabazon, looks cool and has been a favorite, since I was a kid. I find it amazing how the story points out how much tax money was wasted. However, if the story were made much later, I'm sure Concorde could have been added to the list.
"We can't go on throwing money down the drain."
Oh yes we can -- and we did (UK example: the TSR-2) -- and we will...
sardanaphalus 4 days ago
Look at what they've done to Nimrod another waste of a genius aircraft and stability of our defence
curlymii 2 months ago
"But dont worry you can always increase taxation" hahaha!!!
MrFeckham 2 months ago
Socialism sucks monkey balls!!!
Downfacingdog 3 months ago
I once met a pilot who flew the Blackburn Firebrand. A victim of ministry despotism of the time, he was ordered to test fly the new aircraft with a massive torpedo underslung. To gain the lift required from the load, on the short wingspan available, the massive engine torque applied quite simply defeated any wing ability to resist, resulting in an uncontrollable roll as he climbed. Sensibly, he jettisoned the problem (over the Wash as it happened).
FrederickDelarge 9 months ago
gggg
spitfire47able 1 year ago
I flew in the Viscount many years ago, under BEA.. A very nice aeroplane it was.
Pitcairn2 3 years ago
It's too bad tax payers had to fund these things. Any time you put the gov't in charge (ANY gov't) it's going to use the money inefficiently. Using investors and private funds, the costs are usually watched much closer. If the idea is bad or even risky from the beginning, it just would not get the funding in the first place. Taxpayers have no say where they money is going.
taofledermaus 3 years ago
If you take the long view then the money wasn't wasted because the technology learned was used in other industries.
Bullettube 3 years ago 5
And the unglamorous Viscount was the most successful of all those aircraft. Damn Sandys.
evilintel 4 years ago
Yes, and bugger Lockheed for bribing politicians (and royalty) all over Europe and Japan to buy the F-104. Seriously bad choice for the job required!
Gruntol5 4 years ago
I'll give the -104 some cred. Aside from maneuverability, it matched the EE Lightning at a cheaper price, even without the bribes. What urks me in the cancelling of the SR.177. That had potential, especially if they swapped out that gas-guzzling Gyron Jr.
evilintel 4 years ago
For the short-sighted cost savings, Britain is a pathetic shadow of its former self. The U.S. is totally gutted out and will follow Britain into ignominy. Britain and America's epitaph, "It was cheaper to buy it from a foreign supplier". Low cost carries a high price.
InfiniteMushroom 3 years ago 2
The SR53 was a much better project than the F104 (that one killed over 200 pilots in accidents and was much more expensive).
JBnotthescotch 4 years ago
Fordroad talks like a 10 cent book with no back on it.
The Americans are still wasting billions on bum projects like Osprey. A flying death-trap.
copewood333 4 years ago
Hardly a death-trap. Death-trap would be the Blackburn Firebrand, where the service deliberately discredited pilots who spoke out about its deadly vices. Osprey is just something that has never actually seen service before. If we passed up on it, we might as well passed up all new designs and we'd still be flying cloth covered biplanes.
evilintel 4 years ago 3
Osprey has been in development for a quarter of a century! How many more personnel have to die in the damned thing before it's scrapped as a fundamentally bad design?
thisisnev 2 years ago
@thisisnev And the rest, more like half a century.
SuperAncientmariner 1 year ago
Great footage of some very rare aircraft, especially the SR.53. The Brabazon, looks cool and has been a favorite, since I was a kid. I find it amazing how the story points out how much tax money was wasted. However, if the story were made much later, I'm sure Concorde could have been added to the list.
sidewalker22 4 years ago
Great ideas out of touch with the real world & Jet development. The government and the tax payer again millions lost on white elephants.
fordroad 4 years ago