Overweight, over-cost,overblown and over here.....high hopes but low achievement....each Centaurus driving only a 3-bladed prop?...under powered at the drawing board stage.
The 12m would have been better spent on stretching the brand new Comet...but..
..you can't judge yesterdays people with today's values; they did their best.
Problem was that it was based on a philosophy that air travel was for the "select few". It was much larger than say a 767 but carried less than 100 passengers. In utmost luxury, admitted, but that kind of travel died out rapidly and instead mass transportation won the day. Besides, the Brab was hopelessly underpowered. It DID spawn some new tecniques though.
Absolutely amazing footage - thank you for uploading it! Very interesting how the narrator keeps on commenting on how much the plane is costing the Taxpayer - very clear that the U.K. government at the time was dead set to kill the whole project, and needed to "brainwash" the civilians (remember, these newsreels were paid for by the government!).
I wonder if they at least warned before killing the Nimrod upgrade project...
@ArtsObserver I read somewhere that Bristol's built it on an open ended contract and just sent the bills to the government. One example was that the cloakrooms and toilets in the mock-up would normally have been roughed out in timber just to get the layout right but they were finished to Ritz standard.
It might have turned a profit had they condescended to let a few oiks on board along with Algernon and Daphne...but seeing what happened to the Comet 1, they should probably have forked out more for the metal covering the thing....
It's intresting how the wings and engines were integrated and aerodynamic looking compared to most radial engine arraingments. It's a very nice looking plane and counter rotating props is a nice touch also. The end of the piston engine was sort of a sad era, jets replaced them so quickly and made some obsolete before their time.
Watching several video's about giant aircraft and failures in history, I came to this conclusion. Never miss a step when you're trying to go from big to biggest. Some missed the simple step to just bigger and failed! Saunders Roe with their gigantic flying boats, Howard Hughes with his Spruce Goose and Bristol with the Brabazon. There are always three steps, fast, faster, fastest, small, smaller and smallest and so on. NEVER MISS A STEP!
re post below: No, the unions didn't kill the UK aviation industry.
The UK aviation industry was killed off by timid, short-sighted and cost-cutting governments (both Labour and Conservative), and incompetent and complacent management, coupled with a bloated post-war industry that could not streamline itself.
In the case of the Brabazon there was no market research done in advance to find out whether there was any global airline demand for such a beast.
@GREENTAMBOURINE But the Brabazon was named after Lord Brabazon who led a study of what they thought the global post war aviation market was going to be. From what I've read online it seems as if they had no fgiggin' clue as to what was going to happen, so made a wild ass guess with this airplane being one of the 3 results. Like all leadership schools they lose track of the basic facts. 1 you are blind to the future so you have to be ready to react. 2 invest in people. 3 invest in tools.
@thruthefence What happened? Leadership lost touch with what it takes to maintain a lead. The UK's leadership did what the leadership of every great nation does. Consume more resources than produced, and refuse to invest in physical and human resources. Then when faced with decay they refuse to take the blame and change their ways. Blame the union's ... that's funny. Damn the workers for wanting to be in the middle class. It's the leadership class, always has been, always will be.
The lovely village of Charlton bulldozed to make a runway long enough for this heap of flying crap to struggle into the air. Typical govern"mental " decision. Be nice if those who made the decision to bulldoze the village were made to pay out of their own pockets for their monumental incompetence. They are probably dead and gone by now and good ridance to them.
@HelmutVillam , Thank you for that very erudite response. No wonder Germany lost two world wars with vacuous individuals like you on their side. I am assuming with a name like Helmut you are a kraut ,the other puerile videos would certainly suggest so.
@engaurd - re advances let's not forget The Brabazon was the first aircraft with 100% powered flying controls, the first with electric engine controls, and the first with high-pressure hydraulics. The newly devised construction methods developed to save weight (including machining every part and panel to it's individual required strength saving several tons overall) were carried over into later aircraft - eg the Britannia had the best payload fraction of any aircraft when built.
watch from 8 17 how different the approach is from what we see today. Nose down all the way, and up just in time to stop the descent at the last instant before touchdown. More like they do in small civilian airplanes.
as engines developed, the brab could have carried more passengers but...remember...the later boeing 707 was a 104 to 124 passenger airliner, so what's the fuss ?
Wow, what a beautiful thing to see! Thanks Bomberguy.
My granddad (who raised me from a youngster) was doing National Service as a Snowdrop at the time of Brab's maiden flight and told me he had perimeter guard duty at the far end of the runway; he got to watch the aircraft lift into the air and roar over his head. He was still astounded by the scale of her when telling me about it in the 80's. Lovely to share as he's not with us now.
Corporal G P Carter (RAF Police), 1930 -1998. "fiat justitia"
I arrived a decade or two too early. Of course had it arrived later it would have been equipped with jet engines. Post WW2 there weren't nearly enough airlines interested in luxury passenger airliners. Heck even the Concorde was far from a commercial success and remained in service only for the wealthy businessmen that could afford to travel on one.
Such a huge aircraft and only 100 passengers? It was doomed.
My mother used to say 'it blacked out the sky..' when it flew its trials around Filton as she watched the Brabazon from the back yard when hanging the washing... memories!
It needed extra-long runways and infrastructure to operate - so there was no commercial market for it. The Constellation and StratoCruiser could operate from established airfields.
@fordlandau apparently the hangar is still there, according to some colleagues of mine who've been up to Filton a few times in recent years. Anyone know what it's used for now?
@fordlandau It's still there - after the Brabazon project was scrapped it became one of the largest aircraft assembly halls in Europe (including the Bristol Britannia), a service hangar for BOAC Lockheed Super Constelations whilst the London Heathrow HQ was being built, and later home to the production line for the British-built Concordes. We would often hear the siren warning folk that the doors (largest in the world when built) were being opened - added after a worker was sadly crushed.
America was allowed to produce jet engines for 'Hostilities' only..soon after the war a Labour government gave them all our secrets ( for two and a half million quid) for the jet engine which caused the demise of the Brabazon...We owed the United States Sooooooo much..British radar picked up Jap Bombers 350 miles from pearl harbour..they thought it was a malfunction...No such thing as a free lunch eh!
@engaurd Except there were no advances here. Boeing customers started Stratocruiser flights in this same time period, carrying the same number of passengers as the Brab, but using normal runways and hangers, and with better fuel economy. The Brab advanced nothing.
... with a wing span of 70 meters - that would put it between the 747-400 and the A380-800 of today. Incidentally the cost of development (including ground infrastructure...) in today's money would be around £264 million compared to approx. £8 billion for the A380 to the same stage (single flying aircraft) - makes you wonder at how much was done for so little back then!
Must be getting old but I remember as a child seeing The Brabazon flying over my birthplace, Kilmarnock in Ayrshire. Guess it had just left Prestwick 10 miles South West. I was a tiny tot though (3 or 4) but I can remember the roar and everyone in the street waving.
A nostalgic film. I remember when the Brabazon's successor, The Bristol Britannia came into service on the far East routes. I witnessed Britannia's first touch down at Rangoon Airport. Britannia was much faster than Brabazon, and a quiet turbo prop airliner - nicknamed "The Whispering Giant."
I didn't know that the Brabazon had reverse pitch props until the pilot mentioned it in this clip...The British 'Beverley' had them as well and used to win short landing competitions mainly against the Yanks...the RAF would then reverse the aircraft into a parking spec on the airfield just as you would a car....Brilliant and hysterically funny..My brother was a Para and said the looks on the American's faces were wonderful to see'
Can anyone say "Spruce Goose"? It might have been successful if they waited a bit longer for more powerful jet engines. But, you've got to give credit to the brave souls who built and tried concepts like this plane.
What a Huge FLOP!! Like the Trident airliner, and the Comet, in the end all airlines opted for the Boeing 727 (instead of H.S Trident) and the Boeing 707 (Instead of Comet) their you go Brits you miss the boat cos of your narrow minded politicians at the time.
Boeing and HS had agreement to share technology and design of rear engined planes. British aerodynamicists were ahead of Boeing who were keen to catch up. As agreed, Boeing spent 3 months at HS, but when HS tried to arrange their visit to Boeing, they were told flatly that Boeing had learned all they needed and no longer required help from HS. With various changes (incl more raked fin) the 727 was a fairly close copy of the Trident, so UK did not "miss the boat"...we conned it out of them!
Of course it was more successful! Apart from anything else Boeing was cash rich from WW2, largely due to Lend Lease payments from UK which continued for about 90 years. Boeing was also already a huge business with massive marketing and inducements across the world. Britain was bankrupt and its industries in a sorry state. There was no way ANYONE could compete with them.
CaptBubble...You're right..Boeing renaged on the deal...we had the 'All flying elevator' years before they used it on the Bell X project to keep control over Mach 1..The British Air Ministry cancelled it all just before we were ready to fly at 1500 miles an hour with NO explanation given???...Aircraft design is a learning curve..there are no 'Flops'..lessons are learned from every single design..lets all think back to the Wright brothers and work forward 107 years !!!
@gardenalien Hmm, bitter comments, possibly due to USA never having bettered Concorde and only just building something to match the Harrier, some 30 plus years behind.
F.Y.I. Im not from the U.S or Spanish (Live in Spain tho), or German, Dutch etc etc . I was just stating a few facts. Bitter!!! ahhahahah I think you are then one who is bitter, not me. Happy New Year.
Yeah...Concorde was designed for the American market primarily..The Boeing prototype crashed and the project abandoned. The Americans suddenly found objections to the sonic boom and the dirty engines which hadn't bothered them before so Concorde didn't make megabickies as it should have done....It became an expensive flag waver for us and the French. Only one aircraft could catch it from astern in interception trials..the English Electric P1 (Lightning)..makes you proud....dont it!
@rockyPants4000 ..I read in a magazine that the Boeing SST prototype crashed , causing them to abandon the whole project.....you might know more than me...are you sure they never even built a prototype..if they didn't have a major setback why did Boeing abandon the biggest money spinner ever...there is a gap in my knowledge on this..I'd be the first to admit it!
@tony00165 - according to books I have read, the Boeing prototype was only about fifteen percent complete when the project was axed. The Boeing prototype relied heavily on government money, and at the time the US Govt were spending big on putting men on the moon and fighting a hopeless war in Vietnam. Guess which funding program lucked out. But then, the fuel crises would have scuttled it like they did with Concorde.
Imm not British or American, I know that Britain invented the Jet engine, by a wonderful inventor called Sir Frank Whittle. Britain had other inventors and great scientists inventing and discovering wonderful things we take for granted today. I was just stating that unfortunatly politicians at the time in UK didnt give the right encouragment or support. Period. By the way, I dont hate anyone, its a shame you feel hatred toward people who has their own opinion.
@OKRAFIRE What generally idiotic comments, but the comment about propellors is more idiotic than most. Propellors are good at what they do, jets are only 'better' if you want to go faster. Most modern jets are in fact deriving the majority of their thrust from the fan, which is just an advanced ducted fan propellor. Screw propellors are still used for ships, as they are the most efficient device for water propulsion, and the Great Britain was the most advanced ship of its time.
awsome aircraft,shame filton is now just a shadow of its former glory,nothing more than a parts assembly factory now,drawing offices bulldozed,brab hanger rented out to a cargo plane company,such a shame
There is an fantastic clip on the BBC Bristol website, under the History section, which was shot air to air by BAC. Amazingly, it was found in the garden shed of the son of the man who shot it. It really is something. I'm surprised it's not up on here.
Here we go again RabbiSchmuckenfelcher .USA's premiere Numpty, with more of his stupid provocative comments. Thank God he seems incapable of reproducing so his gene pool will die with him. Most of it is in the tissue bin next to his computer.
Just for the record, my comment above was in response to the poorly educated dude who claims to work on modern US jets. Pity he has not studied the history of the subject.
What for a pilot! After all financial maths, did you saw the last landing (8:50)? You can thing it's directly going to crash... and it lands without a bump!
Another example from history of a Labour Government spending taxpayers' money they can ill afford on pet projects that end up on the scrap heap. Note on the overhead shot of St Paul's at the end the acres of unreconstructed bombsites, whilst the MP's sit in splendour in their flying white elephant.
my mother worked at Bristol Airplane Company during production of this aircraft
she often mentioned it , but this is the first time I have seen video of it flying amazing how we were ahead and where we are now thanks to the governments and the way of thinking another was the TSR2 fantastic but the governments F--ked up every time???
More British absurdity. IIRC, they put Nene jet engines on a Vickers Viscount prototype and had a world beater. Instead, the govt wasted 12 million on this deadend.
Ignoring the worlds first afterburning jet engine, and the Miles M.52, capable of Mach 1.2+ and taking off from the ground, before the X1 was even on paper? Only government intrusion prevented it. Hawker Hunter, EE Lightning, Vulcan etc, all the best in the world at the time. And lets not forget the Canberra, a British jet so good that the US bought the design to produce their own!
Frank Whittle built the worlds first working jet engine. He was a Brit. Sadly he could not convince the Ministry of Defence that his engine was the future. He held the world patent but ran out of money and could not maintain the patent.
The Germans copied his design before the war and developed it fully during the war. Resulting in the first jet flight. poor old Frank never made a penny from his creation and is little known except for genuine students of aviation.
Whittle and Hans von Ohain were working quite independently and unknown to each other. Whittle first patent was in 1930, while Ohain first patented in 1934. Hence Whittle is credited (in the English speaking world) with the invention.
I'm quite sure they both copied off each other's patents after the war started!
Unfortunatly that myth still persists, the Germans did not copy Whittles design. Whittle may have published his design first but Von Oheim designed and built the first jet engine! and his Axial Flow Engine is the basis for all modern jet engines. Whittles later centrifugal design also proved to be an evolutionary "dead end"
This aircraft was nothing to be proud over. It was an under powered dog... and it was old tech even in its day. Two years or so later the Comet was out
A friend of mine says he remembers seeing one as a little boy with the distinctive noise they made. I'd never even heard of them before. Fascinating documentary!
TalksWithDirt, you should go back to the late 40s and early 50s and live in Great Britain and say the same comment. Who was the first to come up with a working jet engine? GB or the US?
Well, actually the first design was presented by a british pilot, but shortly after that a young german student got the same idea. Since the first english prototype used a radial compressor instead of an axial one, the design took longer to complete, and the first ever flight powered by a turbojet was a german plane in 1937.
@whitedovetail Whittles centrifugal engine was early, but eventually became a dead end design that did not lead to further advancements. The german axial flow turbines led to todays turbojets and turbofans. Sorry.
You watch aviation videos from back then and realise they were much more prepared to take risks and try out radical design like flying wings and odd configurations than they are today. Its a pity that spirit is held back by accountants today.
Always amazes me how fast they could build a prototype from the designs back then and have it flying.
Oh geezh, first this than the Comet. No wonder Boeing and MacDac won. 100 passengers transatlantic. With so few passengers you could have a tennis court onboard.
It's all a matter of learning from each other's mistakes, usually with lost lives. With the Comet, the American designers then learned not to use square windows and if so, use at least three rows of rivets.
I think commercially viable companies nowadays are not so scared of continuing to fly even with pieces falling off of aircraft and a few tragedies are par for the course.
It might have been a commercial White Elephant, however any failure still yields useful information, so just because _this_ plane might have been a failure, the technologies and knowledge developed probably made it into other planes, saving development cost on those.
My late father worked on this. We lived in a village outside Bristol called Frampton Cotterell and I remember all of his stories from the Filton plant. This one was a little late for prop power though.
These old Brit planes were fabulous.
Which was the one that landed in the mud at Severn Beach?
geeflyboy, indeed the 707 was a fine plane, however would it even have happened without being derived from the original USAF requirement that made the KC-135?
That's my point, there was no such home market in the UK.
Early versions of the Constellation and the C-54 (DC-6) emerged in WW2, not sure if their design was pre WW2, however they emerged.
Everything to do with British transports ended on 3rd Sep 1939.
One is not better, both nations had differing paths in civil aviation post war.
You can see the likeness the ill fated Comet, Brits first passenger jet. The Bristol Brabazon also has the flawed square window that cause fatigue cracking in the Comet, so it's good it failed. No doubt it would have also suffered in-flight breakups as the Comet did.
100 SEATS? Ha ha! That was ALWAYS the problem with the Brits, never built planes that made money. They were always too small. This HUGE plane is the size of today's Boeing 747, 230 FOOT WING SPAN carried only 100-120 passengers.
There is a lot of time and voice-over spent glorifiying the size of the aircraft, but for such a huge aircraft to only carry 100 passangers seems a bit weird.
Then again these were the days when they were simply trying to make the 'biggest and most amazing' .. they didn't actually need to have a reason or any sort of real purpose for the aircraft.
Still, I love that shiney metal look of the old days :)
true, it was an expensive failure and yeah it was simliar in dimension to the 747 but the 747 appeared around 3 years later and had the luxury of 4 20,000lb thrust engines....the brabazon didn't have that....
The 747 appearing three years later?? are you kidding? the 74 wasn't in service until 1969.......it did not have 420K lbs thrust either...the 747-100 delivered much much less, I forget the amount per pipe maybe around 40K each; and yes was a superior airplane; however, these were pioneering days in aviation and we learn from every adventure/ misadventure.
"The huge US companies just had the clout and the big home market"
The Boeing 707 was just a better plane. It was faster, carried more people further and was built like a brick out-house, strong. The Comet as you know came first but lost the lead because it had a nasty habit of falling out of the sky in little bits and pieces.
The Concorde as pretty and fast as it was, never made any money. Now with fuel prices it really would have lost money. Again too small too few passengers.
During WW2 Britain, unlike the US, stopped building and developing transport planes, concentrating on military only.
Post war, it was thought that competing directly with massed produced US piston airliners by much smaller less capitalised UK companies would be futile.
Hence all the innovations, some really worked and sold, like the Viscount the 1st turboprop in service.
The Comet 1 jetliner looked to do the same before the structure problems, Brabazon, the huge Princess flying boat Contd.
US didn't build transports during WWII. Existing transports, DC3, DC4 (flying before WWII) were put into military service. All planes from 1940-45 where military.
The Brits where first on some things but too early too little (or too big).
One big advantage the US had was post war military spending in developing military Turbojets, especially the swept wing B-47, tactical intercontinental jet bomber. B-47 technology was put into the B707, namely wing technology. That was an advantage.
@geeflyboy Nope. The U.S. ADVANCED transport design and production during WWII. The C-54 and C-69 were simply the DC-4 and Lockheed Constellation, both of which went immediately into airline service after the war. The British used mainly American aircraft for transport during WWII, as they built no large transports during the war.
US didn't build commercial planes during WWII. Existing pre WWII transports DC3, DC4 where put into service. The Brits where first on some things but suffered from too early too little (or too big).
An advantage US had was post war military spending, eg, B-47, intercontinental swept wing jet bomber. Wing technology was used by B707. That was a technological advantage. Also the US was better at sizing planes for the market. TRIVIA: B707, 727, 737 and 757 all share same fuselage diameter.
Overweight, over-cost,overblown and over here.....high hopes but low achievement....each Centaurus driving only a 3-bladed prop?...under powered at the drawing board stage.
The 12m would have been better spent on stretching the brand new Comet...but..
..you can't judge yesterdays people with today's values; they did their best.
Firebrand55 1 month ago
Bristol Bigfucker
DannyFischarge 1 month ago 12
Geez. Twelve million? That won't even buy a single BBJ or a G5.
azimuth361 1 month ago
Problem was that it was based on a philosophy that air travel was for the "select few". It was much larger than say a 767 but carried less than 100 passengers. In utmost luxury, admitted, but that kind of travel died out rapidly and instead mass transportation won the day. Besides, the Brab was hopelessly underpowered. It DID spawn some new tecniques though.
ovemunk 2 months ago
@ovemunk
As I've understood it, it was good training for the Britannia (and a bunch of the money spent on this went to infrastructure that they could reuse).
Still a bit optimistic, though - to put it mildly.
dnebdal 3 weeks ago
Zero to 4000 feet in 60 minutes.
chanctonbury63 5 months ago
LOL, people popping out of the fuselage openings look like Maggets on a Rotting Salmon.
GIGABACHI 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jodanielross mr too Born 10 Durban Road.... Mum said it used to 'shut out the sun' when it flew over... whenever the sun was 'out'! lol
Andrewpinon 6 months ago
Absolutely amazing footage - thank you for uploading it! Very interesting how the narrator keeps on commenting on how much the plane is costing the Taxpayer - very clear that the U.K. government at the time was dead set to kill the whole project, and needed to "brainwash" the civilians (remember, these newsreels were paid for by the government!).
I wonder if they at least warned before killing the Nimrod upgrade project...
ArtsObserver 8 months ago
@ArtsObserver I read somewhere that Bristol's built it on an open ended contract and just sent the bills to the government. One example was that the cloakrooms and toilets in the mock-up would normally have been roughed out in timber just to get the layout right but they were finished to Ritz standard.
freebeerfordworkers 7 months ago
It might have turned a profit had they condescended to let a few oiks on board along with Algernon and Daphne...but seeing what happened to the Comet 1, they should probably have forked out more for the metal covering the thing....
stylophobia 8 months ago
i was expecting it was near the size of the spruce goose but its smaller than i imagined
vonpower21 9 months ago
It's intresting how the wings and engines were integrated and aerodynamic looking compared to most radial engine arraingments. It's a very nice looking plane and counter rotating props is a nice touch also. The end of the piston engine was sort of a sad era, jets replaced them so quickly and made some obsolete before their time.
505197 9 months ago
Watching several video's about giant aircraft and failures in history, I came to this conclusion. Never miss a step when you're trying to go from big to biggest. Some missed the simple step to just bigger and failed! Saunders Roe with their gigantic flying boats, Howard Hughes with his Spruce Goose and Bristol with the Brabazon. There are always three steps, fast, faster, fastest, small, smaller and smallest and so on. NEVER MISS A STEP!
Brera011 10 months ago
@Brera011 - Don't forget Lockheed's Constitution and Douglas' DC-4E.
JBofBrisbane 3 months ago
That Groucho Marx gets everywhere
del690 10 months ago
I'm from Bristol n that run way is at the bottom of my street lol
jodanielross 11 months ago
@jodanielross mr too Born 10 Durban Road.... Mum said it used to 'shut out the sun'... whenever the sun was 'out'! lol
Andrewpinon 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jodanielross mr too Born 10 Durban Road.... Mum said it used to 'shut out the sun' when it flew over... whenever the sun was 'out'! lol
Andrewpinon 6 months ago
Damn... she looks so underpowered!
e633xx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Online women for dating **rockmycity.info**
tinishawalckbvh 1 year ago
6:00 A finer collection of stiff upper lips you never did see.
GRAHAMAUS 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Heck out the thousands of profiles for Naughty women mworld5.info
FRIEDAMEGAN 1 year ago
re post below: No, the unions didn't kill the UK aviation industry.
The UK aviation industry was killed off by timid, short-sighted and cost-cutting governments (both Labour and Conservative), and incompetent and complacent management, coupled with a bloated post-war industry that could not streamline itself.
In the case of the Brabazon there was no market research done in advance to find out whether there was any global airline demand for such a beast.
GREENTAMBOURINE 1 year ago
@GREENTAMBOURINE But the Brabazon was named after Lord Brabazon who led a study of what they thought the global post war aviation market was going to be. From what I've read online it seems as if they had no fgiggin' clue as to what was going to happen, so made a wild ass guess with this airplane being one of the 3 results. Like all leadership schools they lose track of the basic facts. 1 you are blind to the future so you have to be ready to react. 2 invest in people. 3 invest in tools.
TalksWithDirt 1 year ago
The Brits used to be the top of the game in engineering this stuff. WTF happened?
Maybe the Unions killed it?
Oh well, soon we'll be speaking Chinese, and you will be speaking Arabic.
thruthefence 1 year ago
@thruthefence What happened? Leadership lost touch with what it takes to maintain a lead. The UK's leadership did what the leadership of every great nation does. Consume more resources than produced, and refuse to invest in physical and human resources. Then when faced with decay they refuse to take the blame and change their ways. Blame the union's ... that's funny. Damn the workers for wanting to be in the middle class. It's the leadership class, always has been, always will be.
TalksWithDirt 1 year ago
The lovely village of Charlton bulldozed to make a runway long enough for this heap of flying crap to struggle into the air. Typical govern"mental " decision. Be nice if those who made the decision to bulldoze the village were made to pay out of their own pockets for their monumental incompetence. They are probably dead and gone by now and good ridance to them.
ottermill 1 year ago
@ottermill
it's a funny thing called progress, and if you're allergic to it go stick your head up your ass.
HelmutVillam 11 months ago
@HelmutVillam , Thank you for that very erudite response. No wonder Germany lost two world wars with vacuous individuals like you on their side. I am assuming with a name like Helmut you are a kraut ,the other puerile videos would certainly suggest so.
ottermill 11 months ago
@engaurd - re advances let's not forget The Brabazon was the first aircraft with 100% powered flying controls, the first with electric engine controls, and the first with high-pressure hydraulics. The newly devised construction methods developed to save weight (including machining every part and panel to it's individual required strength saving several tons overall) were carried over into later aircraft - eg the Britannia had the best payload fraction of any aircraft when built.
ajb07 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Pope has expressed an interest in elevating me to "The Patron Saint Of Toilets" once i am dead.
michaelhypno 1 year ago
watch from 8 17 how different the approach is from what we see today. Nose down all the way, and up just in time to stop the descent at the last instant before touchdown. More like they do in small civilian airplanes.
foketesz 1 year ago
as engines developed, the brab could have carried more passengers but...remember...the later boeing 707 was a 104 to 124 passenger airliner, so what's the fuss ?
ray k
raykhuller 1 year ago
As a kid this airplane scared me to death when it flew over my home [Horfield, Bristol] and I will never forget the unique sound of it's engines
colliecandle 1 year ago
I watch these vids every year or so and still enjoy them, thanks BG.
bluenail90 1 year ago
Wow, what a beautiful thing to see! Thanks Bomberguy.
My granddad (who raised me from a youngster) was doing National Service as a Snowdrop at the time of Brab's maiden flight and told me he had perimeter guard duty at the far end of the runway; he got to watch the aircraft lift into the air and roar over his head. He was still astounded by the scale of her when telling me about it in the 80's. Lovely to share as he's not with us now.
Corporal G P Carter (RAF Police), 1930 -1998. "fiat justitia"
KrillLiberator 1 year ago
9:12 "we're sending up MPs - our most easily expendible load"
Hoogliette 1 year ago 3
very very very nice videos TOV TODA
mrmakemakkara 1 year ago
its such a fail plane
apache1234657 1 year ago
I arrived a decade or two too early. Of course had it arrived later it would have been equipped with jet engines. Post WW2 there weren't nearly enough airlines interested in luxury passenger airliners. Heck even the Concorde was far from a commercial success and remained in service only for the wealthy businessmen that could afford to travel on one.
Such a huge aircraft and only 100 passengers? It was doomed.
McLarenMercedes 1 year ago
My mother used to say 'it blacked out the sky..' when it flew its trials around Filton as she watched the Brabazon from the back yard when hanging the washing... memories!
thephilster57 1 year ago
It needed extra-long runways and infrastructure to operate - so there was no commercial market for it. The Constellation and StratoCruiser could operate from established airfields.
lovemorembigi 1 year ago
the Hangar is highly impressive in its own right..look at the amazing concertina doors across the front...what happened to this hangar?
fordlandau 1 year ago
@fordlandau apparently the hangar is still there, according to some colleagues of mine who've been up to Filton a few times in recent years. Anyone know what it's used for now?
KrillLiberator 1 year ago
@fordlandau It's still there - after the Brabazon project was scrapped it became one of the largest aircraft assembly halls in Europe (including the Bristol Britannia), a service hangar for BOAC Lockheed Super Constelations whilst the London Heathrow HQ was being built, and later home to the production line for the British-built Concordes. We would often hear the siren warning folk that the doors (largest in the world when built) were being opened - added after a worker was sadly crushed.
ajb07 1 year ago
Actually, the demise of this plane was due to the fact that it was ahead of its' time - like the Convair Model 37. But it sure was beautiful...
saftevand 1 year ago
wot a waste of money :/
glenw89 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What a piece of crap!
Turksonbass 1 year ago
woo! go bristol!
moglove109 1 year ago
@moglove109 If you are a Briston native... it's "go Bristle!" The Brabazon was bigger than the 747!!
thephilster57 1 year ago
America was allowed to produce jet engines for 'Hostilities' only..soon after the war a Labour government gave them all our secrets ( for two and a half million quid) for the jet engine which caused the demise of the Brabazon...We owed the United States Sooooooo much..British radar picked up Jap Bombers 350 miles from pearl harbour..they thought it was a malfunction...No such thing as a free lunch eh!
tony00165 1 year ago 3
@engaurd Except there were no advances here. Boeing customers started Stratocruiser flights in this same time period, carrying the same number of passengers as the Brab, but using normal runways and hangers, and with better fuel economy. The Brab advanced nothing.
rockyPants4000 1 year ago
another aviation epic failure!
straighttailpilot 1 year ago
... with a wing span of 70 meters - that would put it between the 747-400 and the A380-800 of today. Incidentally the cost of development (including ground infrastructure...) in today's money would be around £264 million compared to approx. £8 billion for the A380 to the same stage (single flying aircraft) - makes you wonder at how much was done for so little back then!
Snowfox2020 1 year ago
Thank you very much for the nice clips!
XEpikurX 1 year ago
Must be getting old but I remember as a child seeing The Brabazon flying over my birthplace, Kilmarnock in Ayrshire. Guess it had just left Prestwick 10 miles South West. I was a tiny tot though (3 or 4) but I can remember the roar and everyone in the street waving.
And, it was BIG!
stjoe44 1 year ago
good video,originally classic
MatriXinismE 1 year ago
what a good video ,thanks for putting it no youtube , shame about the silly comments though
connect4glyn 1 year ago
A nostalgic film. I remember when the Brabazon's successor, The Bristol Britannia came into service on the far East routes. I witnessed Britannia's first touch down at Rangoon Airport. Britannia was much faster than Brabazon, and a quiet turbo prop airliner - nicknamed "The Whispering Giant."
RMBrown01 2 years ago
I didn't know that the Brabazon had reverse pitch props until the pilot mentioned it in this clip...The British 'Beverley' had them as well and used to win short landing competitions mainly against the Yanks...the RAF would then reverse the aircraft into a parking spec on the airfield just as you would a car....Brilliant and hysterically funny..My brother was a Para and said the looks on the American's faces were wonderful to see'
tony00165 2 years ago
Wonderful video.
meanshop 2 years ago
Can anyone say "Spruce Goose"? It might have been successful if they waited a bit longer for more powerful jet engines. But, you've got to give credit to the brave souls who built and tried concepts like this plane.
danf321 2 years ago
What a Huge FLOP!! Like the Trident airliner, and the Comet, in the end all airlines opted for the Boeing 727 (instead of H.S Trident) and the Boeing 707 (Instead of Comet) their you go Brits you miss the boat cos of your narrow minded politicians at the time.
gardenalien 2 years ago
Boeing and HS had agreement to share technology and design of rear engined planes. British aerodynamicists were ahead of Boeing who were keen to catch up. As agreed, Boeing spent 3 months at HS, but when HS tried to arrange their visit to Boeing, they were told flatly that Boeing had learned all they needed and no longer required help from HS. With various changes (incl more raked fin) the 727 was a fairly close copy of the Trident, so UK did not "miss the boat"...we conned it out of them!
CaptBubble 2 years ago
Yeah you might be right, But the 727 became more successful than the H.S Trident and Boeing made more profit. That you have to admit, Period.
gardenalien 2 years ago
Of course it was more successful! Apart from anything else Boeing was cash rich from WW2, largely due to Lend Lease payments from UK which continued for about 90 years. Boeing was also already a huge business with massive marketing and inducements across the world. Britain was bankrupt and its industries in a sorry state. There was no way ANYONE could compete with them.
CaptBubble 2 years ago
CaptBubble...You're right..Boeing renaged on the deal...we had the 'All flying elevator' years before they used it on the Bell X project to keep control over Mach 1..The British Air Ministry cancelled it all just before we were ready to fly at 1500 miles an hour with NO explanation given???...Aircraft design is a learning curve..there are no 'Flops'..lessons are learned from every single design..lets all think back to the Wright brothers and work forward 107 years !!!
tony00165 1 year ago
@gardenalien Hmm, bitter comments, possibly due to USA never having bettered Concorde and only just building something to match the Harrier, some 30 plus years behind.
meanshop 2 years ago
F.Y.I. Im not from the U.S or Spanish (Live in Spain tho), or German, Dutch etc etc . I was just stating a few facts. Bitter!!! ahhahahah I think you are then one who is bitter, not me. Happy New Year.
gardenalien 2 years ago
Yeah...Concorde was designed for the American market primarily..The Boeing prototype crashed and the project abandoned. The Americans suddenly found objections to the sonic boom and the dirty engines which hadn't bothered them before so Concorde didn't make megabickies as it should have done....It became an expensive flag waver for us and the French. Only one aircraft could catch it from astern in interception trials..the English Electric P1 (Lightning)..makes you proud....dont it!
tony00165 1 year ago
@tony00165 Ah no. Kind of hard to crash a Boeing SST prototype when NONE were ever built! Gotta love YouTube history...
rockyPants4000 1 year ago
@rockyPants4000 ..I read in a magazine that the Boeing SST prototype crashed , causing them to abandon the whole project.....you might know more than me...are you sure they never even built a prototype..if they didn't have a major setback why did Boeing abandon the biggest money spinner ever...there is a gap in my knowledge on this..I'd be the first to admit it!
tony00165 1 year ago
@tony00165 - according to books I have read, the Boeing prototype was only about fifteen percent complete when the project was axed. The Boeing prototype relied heavily on government money, and at the time the US Govt were spending big on putting men on the moon and fighting a hopeless war in Vietnam. Guess which funding program lucked out. But then, the fuel crises would have scuttled it like they did with Concorde.
JBofBrisbane 1 year ago
@JBofBrisbane Thanks for the clarification...It goes to show ....you cant believe everything you read...hands up....I was wrong!
tony00165 1 year ago
@gardenalien
At least it flew. Which is more than can be said for your Boeing 2707 and Lockheed l-2000! Condorde? No? You think your 727 is a better achievement?
Oh wait a min...
The Lockheed Constellation was still using propellor blades off of Brunel's SS Great Britain, IN THE 1940s.
Britain had invented the jet engine by then and even put in the comet by the end of the decade, even after winning the war with the spitfires.
You SUCK. And I am not even British. I just hate people like you
OKRAFIRE 2 years ago
Imm not British or American, I know that Britain invented the Jet engine, by a wonderful inventor called Sir Frank Whittle. Britain had other inventors and great scientists inventing and discovering wonderful things we take for granted today. I was just stating that unfortunatly politicians at the time in UK didnt give the right encouragment or support. Period. By the way, I dont hate anyone, its a shame you feel hatred toward people who has their own opinion.
gardenalien 2 years ago 3
@OKRAFIRE What generally idiotic comments, but the comment about propellors is more idiotic than most. Propellors are good at what they do, jets are only 'better' if you want to go faster. Most modern jets are in fact deriving the majority of their thrust from the fan, which is just an advanced ducted fan propellor. Screw propellors are still used for ships, as they are the most efficient device for water propulsion, and the Great Britain was the most advanced ship of its time.
GRAHAMAUS 1 year ago
I used to be a test pilot
tintownbullshitter 2 years ago
The commentators name is Bob Danvers - Walker .... He was a top bloke.
barry3042 2 years ago 2
it actually had 2 coal fires for internal cabin heat.
ianupton 2 years ago 3
@ianupton And its certificate of airworthiness was written in latin.
tony00165 1 year ago
@tony00165 Funny!!
thephilster57 1 year ago
If only they knew 20 yrs later the C-5 would be rolling through the skies.
pjthetallguy 2 years ago
Sounds like a bloody doodlebug!
koitorob 2 years ago
Thats the contra rotating props
TheTruckDriver09 2 years ago
awsome aircraft,shame filton is now just a shadow of its former glory,nothing more than a parts assembly factory now,drawing offices bulldozed,brab hanger rented out to a cargo plane company,such a shame
mikemashfubar 2 years ago 2
forget the brabazon I want his voice
Doomsday2060 2 years ago 15
Damn straight. I'd go around saying things like 'WOODY!' and 'AWFULLY SPIFFING, WHAT?'
MrMoorkey 2 years ago
Ere, mate. Us real brits don't talk like that. 'E don't talk propa, not like wot we does!
koitorob 2 years ago 2
There is an fantastic clip on the BBC Bristol website, under the History section, which was shot air to air by BAC. Amazingly, it was found in the garden shed of the son of the man who shot it. It really is something. I'm surprised it's not up on here.
Guapito1973 2 years ago 2
Runways were too short!!
geoac 2 years ago
amazing history video !!
gbournelis 2 years ago 11
isn't that the factory concorde was built
12365paul 2 years ago
And now 12 million pounds can buy only one engine for the 777.
transdrole 2 years ago 2
£12 million from taxpayers and there was still food rationing.
Great achievement.
CHAVMORON 2 years ago 2
When it takes off it looks like it's going to slow to take off.
D8W2P4 2 years ago
a white elephant , but magnificent nonetheless
leach1527 2 years ago
and all thats left of her is a few bits of scrap in the Bristol Industrial museum. Sad
stashyjon 2 years ago
!!!The Brabazon is the queen of the sky!!!
convair32 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I am the King of Brazil.
LordGodofMercy 2 years ago
Well I suppose a bottle of Rohypnol and a Viagra has done wonders for your sex life.
I pity those five kids when their mothers tell them the truth.
LordGodofMercy 2 years ago
It was an absolutely beautiful machine.
ryznaga 2 years ago 2
Here we go again RabbiSchmuckenfelcher .USA's premiere Numpty, with more of his stupid provocative comments. Thank God he seems incapable of reproducing so his gene pool will die with him. Most of it is in the tissue bin next to his computer.
LordGodofMercy 2 years ago 4
Damn fine shootdown
35gommer 2 years ago
Why did they place the propellers so close together? Isn't it better if each propeller doesn't have to suck from the same area as the one next?
pyromohanzed 2 years ago
And what did you ever make, apart from stupid comments?
ukbarton 2 years ago 3
Just for the record, my comment above was in response to the poorly educated dude who claims to work on modern US jets. Pity he has not studied the history of the subject.
ukbarton 2 years ago
What for a pilot! After all financial maths, did you saw the last landing (8:50)? You can thing it's directly going to crash... and it lands without a bump!
racastro62 2 years ago
Another example from history of a Labour Government spending taxpayers' money they can ill afford on pet projects that end up on the scrap heap. Note on the overhead shot of St Paul's at the end the acres of unreconstructed bombsites, whilst the MP's sit in splendour in their flying white elephant.
harrasepp 2 years ago
@harrasepp Just like the Labour government that binned the proposed replacements for HMS Eagle and HMS Ark Royal in the 60's you mean?
KrillLiberator 1 year ago
I love the comment @ minute 9 "here she is taking up a load of MP's - our most expendible load" LOL - then as now!
3wheelsonmywagon 2 years ago 4
my mother worked at Bristol Airplane Company during production of this aircraft
she often mentioned it , but this is the first time I have seen video of it flying amazing how we were ahead and where we are now thanks to the governments and the way of thinking another was the TSR2 fantastic but the governments F--ked up every time???
paulchip2003 2 years ago
More British absurdity. IIRC, they put Nene jet engines on a Vickers Viscount prototype and had a world beater. Instead, the govt wasted 12 million on this deadend.
encinobalboa 2 years ago
Ignoring the worlds first afterburning jet engine, and the Miles M.52, capable of Mach 1.2+ and taking off from the ground, before the X1 was even on paper? Only government intrusion prevented it. Hawker Hunter, EE Lightning, Vulcan etc, all the best in the world at the time. And lets not forget the Canberra, a British jet so good that the US bought the design to produce their own!
fancyflier 2 years ago
Sorry dude, but Lockheed managed it too..
Take a look at the Lockheed Constitution - watch?v=-Ss9ZyidjlI
Developed at the same time as the Brabazon, it made the same mistake - too big too soon.
A successful British design from the same time?
Vickers Viscount - watch?v=Y6kOEk66MBU
pkt42 2 years ago
No jets dude, 8 Bristol Centaurus radial engines.
pkt42 2 years ago
Looks like a commercial version of the B36!
nutster9000 2 years ago
Beautiful prop...its a shame it never flew as intended!
Great vid...!
musico81986 2 years ago
Frank Whittle built the worlds first working jet engine. He was a Brit. Sadly he could not convince the Ministry of Defence that his engine was the future. He held the world patent but ran out of money and could not maintain the patent.
The Germans copied his design before the war and developed it fully during the war. Resulting in the first jet flight. poor old Frank never made a penny from his creation and is little known except for genuine students of aviation.
vinorob 2 years ago
Germans didn't copy whittles design.
They created their own engine.
Whittle was earlier though.
EternityOpens776 2 years ago
I did say that the germans 'developed it fully'.
I will re-phrase the comment
They created their own 'unique' design using much that was recorded on Whittles patent to get them started. This fact is documented.
vinorob 2 years ago
Whittle and Hans von Ohain were working quite independently and unknown to each other. Whittle first patent was in 1930, while Ohain first patented in 1934. Hence Whittle is credited (in the English speaking world) with the invention.
I'm quite sure they both copied off each other's patents after the war started!
pkt42 2 years ago
Unfortunatly that myth still persists, the Germans did not copy Whittles design. Whittle may have published his design first but Von Oheim designed and built the first jet engine! and his Axial Flow Engine is the basis for all modern jet engines. Whittles later centrifugal design also proved to be an evolutionary "dead end"
doktorbimmer 2 years ago
This aircraft was nothing to be proud over. It was an under powered dog... and it was old tech even in its day. Two years or so later the Comet was out
gilliguts 2 years ago
9:48: Look at the headroom in that thing! You could play volleyball in there.
Also, anyone know why there's a set of high-mounted windows amidships? It almost looks like as though you step up and over top the wing spar.
NVanWendy 2 years ago
A friend of mine says he remembers seeing one as a little boy with the distinctive noise they made. I'd never even heard of them before. Fascinating documentary!
Perranporth 2 years ago
nice
quangluu96 2 years ago
Now here's a giant propeller airplane, bigger than a Boeing 767, that was waaaaay ahead of its time and far too expensive for viable production.
BeebeCh1972 2 years ago
Contra-Rotating props FTW!
Bobulon 2 years ago 3
some of the last spitfires in 1944 -45 with the griffon engine had counter rotating props but they were rare
fairclought7 2 years ago
TalksWithDirt, you should go back to the late 40s and early 50s and live in Great Britain and say the same comment. Who was the first to come up with a working jet engine? GB or the US?
whitedovetail 2 years ago 2
It were the germans XD
Well, actually the first design was presented by a british pilot, but shortly after that a young german student got the same idea. Since the first english prototype used a radial compressor instead of an axial one, the design took longer to complete, and the first ever flight powered by a turbojet was a german plane in 1937.
flexyco 2 years ago 2
I have no idea why you got thumbed down you tell the truth.
EDS01475634763 2 years ago
Neither. A norwegian by the name Ægidius Elling. In 1903 I think. But since the jet plane was a few years in the future, it was of no use then.
sablatnic 2 years ago
@whitedovetail Whittles centrifugal engine was early, but eventually became a dead end design that did not lead to further advancements. The german axial flow turbines led to todays turbojets and turbofans. Sorry.
rockyPants4000 1 year ago
You watch aviation videos from back then and realise they were much more prepared to take risks and try out radical design like flying wings and odd configurations than they are today. Its a pity that spirit is held back by accountants today.
Always amazes me how fast they could build a prototype from the designs back then and have it flying.
savouryduck 2 years ago 2
Well, there IS Burt Rutan. Look him up.
He won the X-Prize.
Look that up too.
donlemedwn 2 years ago
queen latiyfa of the skies!
morrisseyfan64 2 years ago
Good Video,I saw this plane flying when I was a kid,it was very impressive,thanks for the video
terencehaydn 2 years ago
Oh geezh, first this than the Comet. No wonder Boeing and MacDac won. 100 passengers transatlantic. With so few passengers you could have a tennis court onboard.
TalksWithDirt 2 years ago
It's all a matter of learning from each other's mistakes, usually with lost lives. With the Comet, the American designers then learned not to use square windows and if so, use at least three rows of rivets.
I think commercially viable companies nowadays are not so scared of continuing to fly even with pieces falling off of aircraft and a few tragedies are par for the course.
rbrooks2006 2 years ago
omg it flies
cluegoo69 2 years ago
they dont make british folk like that anymore
lestube001 2 years ago
If it wasn't for "white elephants" like these, there would be no 747's, Airbus, or Antonov monsters we have today.
TheLSK 2 years ago
It might have been a commercial White Elephant, however any failure still yields useful information, so just because _this_ plane might have been a failure, the technologies and knowledge developed probably made it into other planes, saving development cost on those.
AGrandt 2 years ago
My late father worked on this. We lived in a village outside Bristol called Frampton Cotterell and I remember all of his stories from the Filton plant. This one was a little late for prop power though.
These old Brit planes were fabulous.
Which was the one that landed in the mud at Severn Beach?
Maxwell2323 2 years ago
"She's got a certificate to carry non-fare-paying passengers, so we're sending up MPs...our most easily expendable load". ROFL.
flashfyre 2 years ago 5
beautiful....classic british engineering
jordyboy321 2 years ago
"Take orfff power" !!!
I love it !!!
speedbanana2008 2 years ago
You can say what you like about the practicality of the design, but nobody builds beautiful aircraft like the Brits do.
Spitfire, Mosquito, Brabazon, Vulcan...
rossmum 2 years ago 2
Let me first say I'm American, Secondly AGREED
quasiphatpaul 2 years ago
LOL, It may have only had 100 seats, but there was room for butler service to each and every one!
NAMESAREBOLLOX 2 years ago 3
Great film thanks for posting it. Nice to think we once used to actually build things as revolutionary and beautiful as this.
:(
NAMESAREBOLLOX 2 years ago
Mmmm modern things in the 50's... EXCITING! especially at the time.
Doomsday2060 2 years ago
So flippin huge...why didnt they decommission it and then keep it...What a waste
ferahgo90 2 years ago
Should have stuck a hull onto it so they could land it anywhere :)
Doomsday2060 2 years ago
geeflyboy, indeed the 707 was a fine plane, however would it even have happened without being derived from the original USAF requirement that made the KC-135?
That's my point, there was no such home market in the UK.
Early versions of the Constellation and the C-54 (DC-6) emerged in WW2, not sure if their design was pre WW2, however they emerged.
Everything to do with British transports ended on 3rd Sep 1939.
One is not better, both nations had differing paths in civil aviation post war.
SSCFPA 2 years ago
You can see the likeness the ill fated Comet, Brits first passenger jet. The Bristol Brabazon also has the flawed square window that cause fatigue cracking in the Comet, so it's good it failed. No doubt it would have also suffered in-flight breakups as the Comet did.
100 SEATS? Ha ha! That was ALWAYS the problem with the Brits, never built planes that made money. They were always too small. This HUGE plane is the size of today's Boeing 747, 230 FOOT WING SPAN carried only 100-120 passengers.
geeflyboy 2 years ago
Your spot on there Re: Passangers ..
There is a lot of time and voice-over spent glorifiying the size of the aircraft, but for such a huge aircraft to only carry 100 passangers seems a bit weird.
Then again these were the days when they were simply trying to make the 'biggest and most amazing' .. they didn't actually need to have a reason or any sort of real purpose for the aircraft.
Still, I love that shiney metal look of the old days :)
Sh0KcWave 2 years ago
true, it was an expensive failure and yeah it was simliar in dimension to the 747 but the 747 appeared around 3 years later and had the luxury of 4 20,000lb thrust engines....the brabazon didn't have that....
navnig 2 years ago
The 747 did not appear 3 years later, it was way way further off than that.
qwertdr 2 years ago
yeah, that was a typo....lol
navnig 2 years ago
The 747 appearing three years later?? are you kidding? the 74 wasn't in service until 1969.......it did not have 420K lbs thrust either...the 747-100 delivered much much less, I forget the amount per pipe maybe around 40K each; and yes was a superior airplane; however, these were pioneering days in aviation and we learn from every adventure/ misadventure.
XBoeingCapt 2 years ago 2
for the 4th time! that was a typo! geez!
navnig 2 years ago
As you say, the comet suffered some terrible failures, but don't forget that in its Nimrod guise its still flying today, (just)
Technologically, the Comet was genuinely a world leader.
NAMESAREBOLLOX 2 years ago 4
9:12 "We're sending up MP's. Easily our most expendable load."
LOL
71superbee2 2 years ago
also never made it.
Others were delayed which cost sales, like the Britannia and Vanguard.
This policy carried on up to Concorde with the French, who had more luck with their innovative Caravelle.
The head of Sabena in 1952, when the Comet looked to be successful in 1952, still reckoned in 10 years the US would dominate the market.
The huge US companies just had the clout and the big home market
Concorde got the need for European collaboration right though. As we see today with Airbus.
SSCFPA 2 years ago
"The huge US companies just had the clout and the big home market"
The Boeing 707 was just a better plane. It was faster, carried more people further and was built like a brick out-house, strong. The Comet as you know came first but lost the lead because it had a nasty habit of falling out of the sky in little bits and pieces.
The Concorde as pretty and fast as it was, never made any money. Now with fuel prices it really would have lost money. Again too small too few passengers.
geeflyboy 2 years ago
During WW2 Britain, unlike the US, stopped building and developing transport planes, concentrating on military only.
Post war, it was thought that competing directly with massed produced US piston airliners by much smaller less capitalised UK companies would be futile.
Hence all the innovations, some really worked and sold, like the Viscount the 1st turboprop in service.
The Comet 1 jetliner looked to do the same before the structure problems, Brabazon, the huge Princess flying boat Contd.
SSCFPA 2 years ago
US didn't build transports during WWII. Existing transports, DC3, DC4 (flying before WWII) were put into military service. All planes from 1940-45 where military.
The Brits where first on some things but too early too little (or too big).
One big advantage the US had was post war military spending in developing military Turbojets, especially the swept wing B-47, tactical intercontinental jet bomber. B-47 technology was put into the B707, namely wing technology. That was an advantage.
geeflyboy 2 years ago
@geeflyboy Nope. The U.S. ADVANCED transport design and production during WWII. The C-54 and C-69 were simply the DC-4 and Lockheed Constellation, both of which went immediately into airline service after the war. The British used mainly American aircraft for transport during WWII, as they built no large transports during the war.
rockyPants4000 1 year ago
US didn't build commercial planes during WWII. Existing pre WWII transports DC3, DC4 where put into service. The Brits where first on some things but suffered from too early too little (or too big).
An advantage US had was post war military spending, eg, B-47, intercontinental swept wing jet bomber. Wing technology was used by B707. That was a technological advantage. Also the US was better at sizing planes for the market. TRIVIA: B707, 727, 737 and 757 all share same fuselage diameter.
geeflyboy 2 years ago
turned out to be a white elephant -but what lovely sound those engines made
Fartsurmonde 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
JUNK !!
Scharfschutzen1 2 years ago