# Tomato Eins Productions



## Tomato Eins (Mar 14, 2019)

Hi All,
I thought I would share with you some short documentaries I've been working on. I'm a young aviation enthusiast and have a huge passion for warbirds.I hope you enjoy and finding them interesting. More on the way so stay posted✈️✈️

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tomato Eins (Dec 18, 2019)

Just finished another doco. This new one focuses on the CAC CA-4 Wackett Bomber/CA-11 Woomera. A very unique plane indeed. The whole look of the doco has been refurbished. Make sure to check it out.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tomato Eins (May 12, 2020)



Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tomato Eins (May 30, 2020)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tomato Eins (Aug 23, 2020)

My latest documentary is remake of my original spitfire documentary. A little more info has been added while the whole look of the video ahs been changed. Enjoy

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 23, 2020)

Nicely done on these!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tomato Eins (Jan 6, 2021)

vikingBerserker said:


> Nicely done on these!


Thank you 👍✈


----------



## Tomato Eins (Jan 6, 2021)

Hi all,
The Short Stirling is often overshadowed by the Lancaster and Halifax, but it still made a considerable contribution to the Allied War Effort. In 1942 alone it flew in all the 1,000 bomber raids. While it had its short comings most of them was as a result of the original specification and it was able to find usage of in a range of roles. Here is my attempt at documenting the development of the Stirling:


----------



## Capt. Vick (Jan 6, 2021)

Good work amigo! Totally beats mine: "Skeet-ball games of the Third Reich".

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 6, 2021)

Well done.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tomato Eins (Feb 21, 2021)

Capt. Vick said:


> Good work amigo! Totally beats mine: "Skeet-ball games of the Third Reich".


Thank you 👍✈


----------



## Tomato Eins (Feb 21, 2021)

Following, the success of the Mosquito, De Havilland set off an providing the RAF with long-range, high performance fighter. From this the twin-engine De Havilland Hornet and Sea Hornet was born, an aircraft that test pilot Eric Brown believed could “even with one propellor feathered...loop with the best single-engine fighter.” This is the story of one of Britain’s best, but overlooked piston engine aircraft.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tomato Eins (Feb 21, 2021)

vikingBerserker said:


> Well done.


Thank you 👍✈


----------



## fastmongrel (Feb 22, 2021)

Tomato Eins Productions said:


> Hi all,
> The Short Stirling is often overshadowed by the Lancaster and Halifax, but it still made a considerable contribution to the Allied War Effort. In 1942 alone it flew in all the 1,000 bomber raids. While it had its short comings most of them was as a result of the original specification and it was able to find usage of in a range of roles. Here is my attempt at documenting the development of the Stirling:




Just a little nitpick. The Stirlings wingspan wasnt due to the need to fit inside a hangar. Heavies rarely if ever saw the inside of a hangar all maintenance would be carried out in the open. The standard hangar door was either 112 feet or 120 feet wide with bigger hangars being built on new bases. No one seems to know for definite why the wingspan restriction was in the specs possibly the Air Ministry was trying to keep size and weight down.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tomato Eins (Mar 21, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> Just a little nitpick. The Stirlings wingspan wasnt due to the need to fit inside a hangar. Heavies rarely if ever saw the inside of a hangar all maintenance would be carried out in the open. The standard hangar door was either 112 feet or 120 feet wide with bigger hangars being built on new bases. No one seems to know for definite why the wingspan restriction was in the specs possibly the Air Ministry was trying to keep size and weight down.



Thanks👍 When researching it seemed very cloudy, with majority of sources stating the issue was related to fitting into the hangar and only one or two saying otherwise and few not offering anything. I included it, as it was the what most sources stated.


----------



## Tomato Eins (Mar 21, 2021)

My latest addition. I personally believe this is one of my best:


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 21, 2021)

Tomato Eins Productions said:


> Thanks👍 When researching it seemed very cloudy, with majority of sources stating the issue was related to fitting into the hangar and only one or two saying otherwise and few not offering anything. I included it, as it was the what most sources stated.



If you go to original RAF sources there's no mention of the hangar size being a problem. There were several contemporary aircraft designs that had wingspans greater than the Stirling. If you just read the same sources you will always be at risk of getting things wrong. 

Much of what is printed or on the web all uses the same sources and it's easy for a mistake or downright lie to become fact. Google Martin Caidin and the forked tail devil myth. The myth has been busted many times but still the same story gets quoted.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 21, 2021)

I beleive the wing-span limitation was a result of the Air Ministry not wanting the bombers becoming too large.
The Short S.29 (Stirling) was the result of the Air Ministry's B.12/36 (Order 40) specification.

Supermarine's 316/317 wing was under 100 feet (prototypes only), as was Armstrong-Whitworth's proposed A.W.42 (which never left the drawing board) - both of these also being the result of the Ministry's B.12/36 specification.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 21, 2021)

Good stuff!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Mar 25, 2021)

Tomato Eins Productions said:


> My latest documentary is remake of my original spitfire documentary. A little more info has been added while the whole look of the video ahs been changed. Enjoy



Very informative for me. I’m curious about the Spitfire at the 7:21 minute mark. FU*? just seems a little strange. I believe forum members have brought this plane up before. Was the newspaper headline at the 3:26 mark to see if anyone was paying attention?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tomato Eins (May 20, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> If you go to original RAF sources there's no mention of the hangar size being a problem. There were several contemporary aircraft designs that had wingspans greater than the Stirling. If you just read the same sources you will always be at risk of getting things wrong.
> 
> Much of what is printed or on the web all uses the same sources and it's easy for a mistake or downright lie to become fact. Google Martin Caidin and the forked tail devil myth. The myth has been busted many times but still the same story gets quoted.



Unfortunately during my research I didn't have access to the original RAF material. I even encountered a book about the history of Short Brothers aircraft that included the wingspan was limited due to RAF limitations. Yeah, you have to be very careful with information and I always try my best to cross reference. With so much out there it is easy for fiction to come fact. In some cases I have left out information if there is too much conflicting information on it. Unfortunately with Stirling virtually all that is printed on the web about it states the RAF requirement as a limitation and hence why it was included.👍


----------



## Tomato Eins (May 20, 2021)

Gnomey said:


> Good stuff!



Thank you 👍


----------



## Tomato Eins (May 20, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Very informative for me. I’m curious about the Spitfire at the 7:21 minute mark. FU*? just seems a little strange. I believe forum members have brought this plane up before. Was the newspaper headline at the 3:26 mark to see if anyone was paying attention?



Thank you 👍 I'm honestly not sure about FU*?. The video is from the Australian War Memorial and this is the description taken from the AWM website about the video:

"RAF Fighter Command Spitfires of No. 453 Squadron RAAF this is the Squadron led by Squadron Leader Ernest Esau which was engaged in attacking V2 rocket sites. Close up studies of pilots drinking tea at a Church Army Mobile Canteen. Armourers loading ammunition into Spitfires. Pilots being strapped in. Taxiing and take off. See also Cinesound newsreel F02015 RAAF convoy busters. "

Here is an image from the ADF serials website of it. It's an Aussie spit, but that about as much as I know. 






hahaha, looks like I was asleep when editing. Didn't even realize it from the wrong war. How embarrassing. However if anyone asks, it was to ensure people were awake and paying attention😂

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tomato Eins (May 20, 2021)

Here is another one, that I've just finished. The Boeing 247 did see some service during WW2 with both the United States and Canada as transport and training aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (May 20, 2021)

The 247 is one of my favorites. I read many years ago about a problem the 247 had. The wing structure intruded into the passenger cabin. It made boarding and exiting somewhat awkward.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tomato Eins (May 26, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> The 247 is one of my favorites. I read many years ago about a problem the 247 had. The wing structure intruded into the passenger cabin. It made boarding and exiting somewhat awkward.


It is a very nice looking aircraft. Another area the DC-2 was able to gain the upper and over the 247

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tomato Eins (Jun 24, 2021)

Following on from the Boeing 247, my latest video focuses on its competitor the DC-2. The DC-2 was quite a significant aircraft, flying many miles for many countries around the world. It also began the long line of Douglas Commercial aircraft.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 24, 2021)

Good one!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 24, 2021)

A great video. Some stuff about the DC-2 I never knew, its military variants. I knew it made scheduled passenger stops while competing in the England to Australia race. I did not know about the additional mail stops. The Albury adventure was a revelation. Really cool.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Jun 25, 2021)

Tomato Eins Productions said:


> Just finished another doco. This new one focuses on the CAC CA-4 Wackett Bomber/CA-11 Woomera. A very unique plane indeed. The whole look of the doco has been refurbished. Make sure to check it out.




Hi Jarryd. I recently read the Woomera was so woeful as an aircraft that Flight Lieutenant D.R. Cuming (who test flew the Woomera) tried to convince Air Force Headquarters to keep the sole CA-11 at No.1 Aircraft Performance Unit so he could use it to demonstrate to future test pilots everything that could be wrong with an aircraft's design and handling characteristics.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tomato Eins (Jul 14, 2021)

Gnomey said:


> Good one!


Thank you 👍✈


----------



## Tomato Eins (Jul 14, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> A great video. Some stuff about the DC-2 I never knew, its military variants. I knew it made scheduled passenger stops while competing in the England to Australia race. I did not know about the additional mail stops. The Albury adventure was a revelation. Really cool.


Thank you 👍✈ The DC-2 often gets overshadowed by the DC-3, but still had its fair share of stories. The Albury adventure is quite unique, and one that has become apart of the local folklore down here in Australia. I didn't include it in the video, but the incident resulted in strong ties between the Dutch and Albury. The Dutch sent gifts and money and the major of Albury at the time even received a title of Dutch nobility. Quite the story.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tomato Eins (Jul 14, 2021)

Graeme said:


> Hi Jarryd. I recently read the Woomera was so woeful as an aircraft that Flight Lieutenant D.R. Cuming (who test flew the Woomera) tried to convince Air Force Headquarters to keep the sole CA-11 at No.1 Aircraft Performance Unit so he could use it to demonstrate to future test pilots everything that could be wrong with an aircraft's design and handling characteristics.


That is really interesting. I hadn't heard about that, but really gives an interesting view of the aircraft. It doesn't get a mention in designer Lawrence Wackett's autobiography which only adds to the design not being overly great. Would you by any chance have the source, as I would love to have a read about it 👍


----------



## Graeme (Jul 14, 2021)

Tomato Eins Productions said:


> Would you by any chance have the source, as I would love to have a read about it 👍



It's mentioned only briefly - but look for Alan Stephens' book - Going Solo.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tomato Eins (Jul 25, 2021)

Graeme said:


> It's mentioned only briefly - but look for Alan Stephens' book - Going Solo.


Thanks, I'll have a look 👍


----------



## Tomato Eins (Aug 7, 2021)

Another two videos to add to the collection. These two videos cover the history of the Bristol Beaufort. 

Developed in the mid-late 1930s, the Bristol Beaufort fulfilled an urgent need of the Royal Air Force for an effective anti-shipping aircraft. Problems with the Taurus engines would hamper the early career of the Beaufort. From perhaps a somewhat shaky beginning, the Beaufort would end up being built in considerable numbers and utilized significantly throughout the war. In all 2,130 Beaufort's were built, 700 of which were manufactured in Australia. For Australia, the manufacturing success of the Beaufort was a great achievement for the local industry. Serving in all theatres of war, the Beaufort held its own and served its role very well. Many considered its role in the Pacific to be significant to the Allied victory, while it is played a critical role in disrupting the supplies lines of the German forces in Northern Africa, sinking many ships.

The first video covers the development of the Bristol Beaufort in England and its use with the Royal Air Force. 



The second video focuses on the manufacturing of the Beaufort in Australia and its service with the Royal Australian Air Force in the Pacific.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tomato Eins (Oct 5, 2021)

New video, this time focusing on the Boulton Paul Defiant.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 5, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> Just a little nitpick. The Stirlings wingspan wasnt due to the need to fit inside a hangar. Heavies rarely if ever saw the inside of a hangar all maintenance would be carried out in the open. The standard hangar door was either 112 feet or 120 feet wide with bigger hangars being built on new bases. No one seems to know for definite why the wingspan restriction was in the specs possibly the Air Ministry was trying to keep size and weight down.



Yup, the reason behind not increasing the wingspan was weight creep as the Stirling airframe underwent considerable development pains, the design finalised before the complete evaluation of the small scale S.31 in which issues were found with runway length because of wing incidence, which couldn't be altered, but also the original specification, B.12/36 did state that the span mustn't exceed 100 feet. It doesn't mention hangar dimensions, as per your statement about the aircraft being maintained outdoors, which the smaller bomber specification P.13/36 was the same in this regard, but there was no mention of wingspan dimension for that one.



Tomato Eins Productions said:


> Unfortunately during my research I didn't have access to the original RAF material. I even encountered a book about the history of Short Brothers aircraft that included the wingspan was limited due to RAF limitations.



Yup, the Putnam short Brothers book says the same, so you're right to be wary...



Tomato Eins Productions said:


> I'm honestly not sure about FU*?.



FU was the squadron code for 453 Sqn, but the question mark was often applied to CO's aircraft and many squadrons had a "?" in their inventory.



Tomato Eins Productions said:


> New video, this time focusing on the Boulton Paul Defiant.



Oooo, look forward to this one...


----------



## Tomato Eins (Oct 25, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Yup, the Putnam short Brothers book says the same, so you're right to be wary...


There are many books claiming this as fact. Probably because the Stirling is a little lesser known, the myth has slipped through and just came fact. For example if it was a myth in regards to the Spitfire, I'm sure there would of been quite debate around it and the myth "debunked"


nuuumannn said:


> FU was the squadron code for 453 Sqn, but the question mark was often applied to CO's aircraft and many squadrons had a "?" in their inventory.


 I had never heard about CO's aircraft having the question mark applied, very interesting😀. Thanks 👍✈. 453 squadron was formed mainly with Australian personnel, and one of the two Spitfires based at Temora, New South Wales, Australia carrries the marking of FU-P.


nuuumannn said:


> Oooo, look forward to this one...


👍✈

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 25, 2021)

Tomato Eins Productions said:


> New video, this time focusing on the Boulton Paul Defiant.



Nice! Watched it, very interesting.

A few minor things, more as additional background info rather than corrections to your excellent work.

1. When the concept for the turret fighter was drawn up, it was to operate in conjunction with single-seaters, the idea being that the Daffys would break up the bomber formations by diving among them and whilst the bombers separated, the single-seaters were to chase the stragglers, or that was the theory. Defiants could fire the guns forward as the pilot had a trigger on his spade grip an there was a switch in the turret that enabled the pilot to fire the guns, but the pilot had no gunsight and the guns were not synchronised. This was rarely used, if at all because the switch was largely wired shut on in-service Defiants.

2. The Hawker Hotspur programme wasn't so much delayed as Hawker at Kingston had little interest in it and work on the prototype was put off and resources diverted to other things, so it took longer because of apathy rather than delay! Eventually the Hotspur prototype went to Farnborough where it assisted in the development of dive flaps for the Henley dive bomber.

3. When the tactical trials were flown in October 1939, the pilot was Philip Hunter, who became 264 Sqn's CO and an advocate for the type, ace-to-be Bob Stanford Tuck flew the Hurricane, and Hunter made it very difficult for Tuck to get in a firing position despite the Hurricane being faster and more manoeuvrable, to the extent that Tuck failed to do so while the Daffy was in Hunter's hands. Sadly, Hunter eventually disappeared on ops in August 1940; he was pursuing an enemy aircraft out to sea and never returned.

4. The Lufbery Circle tactic was also Hunter's doing and the losses suffered by 141 Sqn's Daffys was preventable as the CO of that unit had little faith in the type and despite Hunter recommending tactics, he did not take them up, to the detriment of the Defiant crews lost. This incident was known as the "Slaughter of the Innocents" and was terribly unfortunate, but the Daffys were bounced by around 30 Bf 109s, so they were desperately outnumbered to begin with.

5. Although the Defiant made a good night fighter, it was only intended on being an interim until the radar equipped Beaufighter II appeared in larger numbers, the problem was two-fold; radar sets didn't perform as well as expected and the squadrons had difficulty with them, and the Beaufighter II exhibited terrible handling characteristics on the ground and killed a lot of trainee pilots, even experienced pilots called it a devil of a thing, but of course, that's outside of the scope of your presentation.

6. The principal Defiant night fighter OTU was No.60, which was the biggest single operator of the type, with more Defiants going through 60 OTU's books than any other. Night fighter training was also conducted with 54 OTU, and that carried out by 60 OTU in Scotland was eventually deemed unnecessary and night fighter training was consolidated at Charterhall, Northumberland with 54 OTU and 60 OTU had been disbanded by the end of 1942. Charterhall became locally known as "Slaughter Hall" owing to the large number of tyro night fighter pilots flying into the ground.

7. A wee note about operators, neither the Royal Australian, Royal Canadian or Polish Air Forces operated the Defiant. The squadrons that operated the type had affiliations with these foreign countries, but they were under RAF jurisdiction, the Canadian and Aussie units being designated either RCAF or RAAF, but they were in fact under RAF control. These were the 400 series RAF squadrons formed under Article XV, although the Polish units in the 300 range were simply Polish squadrons of the RAF. Following the war, some of these units went to their respective countries, which adds to the confusion, but during the war they were RAF units.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tomato Eins (Oct 28, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Nice! Watched it, very interesting.


Thanks 👍✈


nuuumannn said:


> A few minor things, more as additional background info rather than corrections to your excellent work.
> 
> 1. When the concept for the turret fighter was drawn up, it was to operate in conjunction with single-seaters, the idea being that the Daffys would break up the bomber formations by diving among them and whilst the bombers separated, the single-seaters were to chase the stragglers, or that was the theory. Defiants could fire the guns forward as the pilot had a trigger on his spade grip an there was a switch in the turret that enabled the pilot to fire the guns, but the pilot had no gunsight and the guns were not synchronised. This was rarely used, if at all because the switch was largely wired shut on in-service Defiants.
> 
> 2. The Hawker Hotspur programme wasn't so much delayed as Hawker at Kingston had little interest in it and work on the prototype was put off and resources diverted to other things, so it took longer because of apathy rather than delay! Eventually the Hotspur prototype went to Farnborough where it assisted in the development of dive flaps for the Henley dive bomber.





nuuumannn said:


> 3. When the tactical trials were flown in October 1939, the pilot was Philip Hunter, who became 264 Sqn's CO and an advocate for the type, ace-to-be Bob Stanford Tuck flew the Hurricane, and Hunter made it very difficult for Tuck to get in a firing position despite the Hurricane being faster and more manoeuvrable, to the extent that Tuck failed to do so while the Daffy was in Hunter's hands. Sadly, Hunter eventually disappeared on ops in August 1940; he was pursuing an enemy aircraft out to sea and never returned.


Thanks for the additional information. When researching most of the research just talked about the trials in general terms. 


nuuumannn said:


> 4. The Lufbery Circle tactic was also Hunter's doing and the losses suffered by 141 Sqn's Daffys was preventable as the CO of that unit had little faith in the type and despite Hunter recommending tactics, he did not take them up, to the detriment of the Defiant crews lost. This incident was known as the "Slaughter of the Innocents" and was terribly unfortunate, but the Daffys were bounced by around 30 Bf 109s, so they were desperately outnumbered to begin with.


Alec Brew covers this really well in his book 'Boulton Paul Defiant: An Illustrated History'. I would of loved to delve into this more, but I was already struggling with time, so some things unfortunately had to be cut. Brew concludes that the incident with 141 sqn “has tainted the reputation of the Defiant to this day," and I personally agree with this statement. The Defiant had its flaws, but wasn't all terrible, and looking at its entire combat career showed an aircraft that was overall mainly successful in doing its job (but's that another discussion for another day. Sorry for getting a little off track). This book in general covers the history of the Boulton Paul Defiant really well, highlighting its entire career to show that it isn't as bad as history has made it look, while still acknowledging its faults. A great resource for the video and would recommend.


nuuumannn said:


> 5. Although the Defiant made a good night fighter, it was only intended on being an interim until the radar equipped Beaufighter II appeared in larger numbers, the problem was two-fold; radar sets didn't perform as well as expected and the squadrons had difficulty with them, and the Beaufighter II exhibited terrible handling characteristics on the ground and killed a lot of trainee pilots, even experienced pilots called it a devil of a thing, but of course, that's outside of the scope of your presentation.


Yep, Beaufighter's also encountered teething problems when entering service which limited its use. The Defiant did it's job well enough. Nothing special, but it did the job.


nuuumannn said:


> 6. The principal Defiant night fighter OTU was No.60, which was the biggest single operator of the type, with more Defiants going through 60 OTU's books than any other. Night fighter training was also conducted with 54 OTU, and that carried out by 60 OTU in Scotland was eventually deemed unnecessary and night fighter training was consolidated at Charterhall, Northumberland with 54 OTU and 60 OTU had been disbanded by the end of 1942. Charterhall became locally known as "Slaughter Hall" owing to the large number of tyro night fighter pilots flying into the ground.
> 
> 7. A wee note about operators, neither the Royal Australian, Royal Canadian or Polish Air Forces operated the Defiant. The squadrons that operated the type had affiliations with these foreign countries, but they were under RAF jurisdiction, the Canadian and Aussie units being designated either RCAF or RAAF, but they were in fact under RAF control. These were the 400 series RAF squadrons formed under Article XV, although the Polish units in the 300 range were simply Polish squadrons of the RAF. Following the war, some of these units went to their respective countries, which adds to the confusion, but during the war they were RAF units.


Yes very true. I'll try and make that clearer for future presentations. 

Thanks for the feedback/additional info, appreciate it. There definitely could be a feature documentary made about this type. I love discussing and learning more about this aircraft. 👍✈

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 28, 2021)

Tomato Eins Productions said:


> Alec Brew covers this really well in his book 'Boulton Paul Defiant: An Illustrated History'. I would of loved to delve into this more, but I was already struggling with time, so some things unfortunately had to be cut. Brew concludes that the incident with 141 sqn “has tainted the reputation of the Defiant to this day," and I personally agree with this statement. The Defiant had its flaws, but wasn't all terrible, and looking at its entire combat career showed an aircraft that was overall mainly successful in doing its job (but's that another discussion for another day. Sorry for getting a little off track). This book in general covers the history of the Boulton Paul Defiant really well, highlighting its entire career to show that it isn't as bad as history has made it look, while still acknowledging its faults. A great resource for the video and would recommend.



Yup, I have Brew's Air Britain volume, it is indeed a great resource. He is certainly right about the Defiant's reputation suffering as a result of the 141 Sqn incident, the problem with it was that it suffered the 'Chinese Whispers' treatment, where it got worse with every telling, so by the time it got back to the Air Ministry and Dowding, who had reservations about the type from the outset, the response was natural. Two of the pilots were New Zealanders. Another incident that caught headlines at the time was the collision of a Defiant and a Botha over Blackpool in 1941 in broad daylight, all the aircrew died, including the two Defiant crews, both New Zealanders, the gunner leaping from his turret, but he was too low for his chute to open. Civilians on the ground perished as the wreckage fell on the Blackpool railway station.

The fact behind the Defiant as a day fighter was that there were only two squadrons that operated the type in that role and during each combat incident, quite in accordance with Park's tactics, Flights of three, six, nine or 12 aircraft were sent aloft, so it was never represented in large numbers and it shouldn't have had so much exposure to single-seat opposition. But, as has been said before, Dowding was desperate for fighters and felt he didn't have enough, so the Daffy had to be counted.

By contrast the decision to make the type solely a night fighter (the original specification does stipulate that as one of its uses) saved its career and around 13 squadrons wholly or partially used the Defiant as a night fighter. Another contextual tidbit worth examining is the whole "Germans mistaking the Defiant with Hurricanes" angle, which I'm glad you didn't mention, it was first presented during the official Air Ministry account of the Battle of Britain and its coloured the Defiant's reputation ever since, but it's a myth of course, the Germans were well aware of the Defiant's existence at that time during its so called "Day of Glory", when 30 or more enemy aircraft were claimed.

I also find the technical workings of the turret and its impact on the aircraft fascinating, from the point of view of the gunners wearing the "Rhino-suit", the parachute grow bag they had to wear since the parachute had to be worn in the turret, a fascinating concession.



Tomato Eins Productions said:


> Thanks for the feedback/additional info, appreciate it. There definitely could be a feature documentary made about this type. I love discussing and learning more about this aircraft.



Very much so. In context, the turret fighter was not the greatest idea but it persevered beyond the Battle of Britain, a late 1940 specification for a night fighter was altered to include a turret as a Defiant replacement and Bristol built a variant of the Beaufighter with one and de Havilland built two prototypes of the Mosquito with gun turrets, so the idea didn't die. By the time the night fighter Mosquito with its fixed armament and the excellent results from using the Beaufighter equipped with radar emerged, the Defiant and the Turret fighter's day had passed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 28, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> "Germans mistaking the Defiant with Hurricanes"


It's entirely possible there may have been a case or two of mistaken identity early on, Saburo Sakai's mistaking an SBD for an F4F nearly cost him his life.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 28, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> It's entirely possible there may have been a case or two of mistaken identity early on,



Maybe, but it's highly unlikely that the Air Ministry author writing the official account of the Battle of Britain in 1941 would have known that.


----------



## ARTESH (Oct 28, 2021)

Tomato Eins Productions said:


> Hi All,
> I thought I would share with you some short documentaries I've been working on. I'm a young aviation enthusiast and have a huge passion for warbirds.I hope you enjoy and finding them interesting. More on the way so stay posted✈️✈️



Great work, mate. Just here to say that I'm 829th person that subscribed your Chanel. 

I'm not an expert in aviation or anything related to that, just several advises about your videos and your Chanel in general:

First of all, I know how hard is making animations, and sincing them with narration, it's a hard work for a single person, but try to keep it at about 1 video per month, is great. There are thousands of Planes to cover, so you'll not run out of ideas very soon.

Second, don't forget to cooperate with other channels that are in same category as yours, Military history in general, is best, followed by Strategy / Flight Simulator Game channels, so you can be the technician / historian guy among gamers ( or generally, younger generations).

3rd, at first two videos, you're some kind out of energy, it's not good. In long, it would become against you. Also you've forgot to great people and introducing yourself to those who are watching your chanell for first time.

4th to mention, your home page needs much work. You have made many videos and playlists, bring them to your homepage.

Lastly, best wishes for you and your great work.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 30, 2021)

Good ones!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tomato Eins (Nov 10, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> The fact behind the Defiant as a day fighter was that there were only two squadrons that operated the type in that role and during each combat incident, quite in accordance with Park's tactics, Flights of three, six, nine or 12 aircraft were sent aloft, so it was never represented in large numbers and it shouldn't have had so much exposure to single-seat opposition. But, as has been said before, Dowding was desperate for fighters and felt he didn't have enough, so the Daffy had to be counted.


Very true.


nuuumannn said:


> By contrast the decision to make the type solely a night fighter (the original specification does stipulate that as one of its uses) saved its career and around 13 squadrons wholly or partially used the Defiant as a night fighter. Another contextual tidbit worth examining is the whole "Germans mistaking the Defiant with Hurricanes" angle, which I'm glad you didn't mention, it was first presented during the official Air Ministry account of the Battle of Britain and its coloured the Defiant's reputation ever since, but it's a myth of course, the Germans were well aware of the Defiant's existence at that time during its so called "Day of Glory", when 30 or more enemy aircraft were claimed.


I nearly went into the "Germans mistaking the Defiant with the Hurricanes, but it never fitted quite right and was always a bit awkward. Also, the fact that it can't be confirmed also persuaded me away from it. It also takes away from the achievements of the aircraft during the time period. It was used successfully. 


nuuumannn said:


> I also find the technical workings of the turret and its impact on the aircraft fascinating, from the point of view of the gunners wearing the "Rhino-suit", the parachute grow bag they had to wear since the parachute had to be worn in the turret, a fascinating concession.


Yeah agree. Very interesting.


nuuumannn said:


> Very much so. In context, the turret fighter was not the greatest idea but it persevered beyond the Battle of Britain, a late 1940 specification for a night fighter was altered to include a turret as a Defiant replacement and Bristol built a variant of the Beaufighter with one and de Havilland built two prototypes of the Mosquito with gun turrets, so the idea didn't die. By the time the night fighter Mosquito with its fixed armament and the excellent results from using the Beaufighter equipped with radar emerged, the Defiant and the Turret fighter's day had passed.


The turret on the Beaufighter while tested operationally wasn't very successful and more or less killed the turret fighter concept. The Defiant while not spectacular, did it's job. An interesting job it undertook was as an ECM aircraft and then at the end of the war to test ejection seats.


----------



## Tomato Eins (Nov 10, 2021)

ARTESH said:


> Great work, mate. Just here to say that I'm 829th person that subscribed your Chanel.


Thank you, it is greatly appreciated. 👍✈


ARTESH said:


> I'm not an expert in aviation or anything related to that, just several advises about your videos and your Chanel in general:
> 
> First of all, I know how hard is making animations, and sincing them with narration, it's a hard work for a single person, but try to keep it at about 1 video per month, is great. There are thousands of Planes to cover, so you'll not run out of ideas very soon.


Thanks. The animations was quite difficult to do, and was definitely a learning curve since my experience before hand was rather limited. But we got there in the end. As much as I enjoyed the animations, I'm glad I went to the pictures with narration over the top that I do now. I think it is a better experience for all. Indeed I won't be running out of ideas anytime soon. Also am looking at major aviation events and aviators, so plenty to keep me going. 


ARTESH said:


> Second, don't forget to cooperate with other channels that are in same category as yours, Military history in general, is best, followed by Strategy / Flight Simulator Game channels, so you can be the technician / historian guy among gamers ( or generally, younger generations).


A good suggestion. The gaming side of things is something I have considered exploring, just haven't gotten around to doing it. 


ARTESH said:


> 3rd, at first two videos, you're some kind out of energy, it's not good. In long, it would become against you. Also you've forgot to great people and introducing yourself to those who are watching your chanell for first time.


Thanks for the pick up. I'm going to add a greeting video now. 


ARTESH said:


> 4th to mention, your home page needs much work. You have made many videos and playlists, bring them to your homepage.


I'm working on improving it 


ARTESH said:


> Lastly, best wishes for you and your great work.


Thank you for the feedback and support. Appreciate it. More videos on there way👍✈

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 11, 2021)

In regards to an animation aspect, you may find this thread interesting:
My New IL2 Video Research Thread...

Years ago, several of the forum members got together and recreated a historical event using IL-2: Sturmovik as the medium.
It took considerable effort, but in the end, was quite rewarding.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ARTESH (Nov 11, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> In regards to an animation aspect, you may find this thread interesting:
> My New IL2 Video Research Thread...
> 
> Years ago, several of the forum members got together and recreated a historical event using IL-2: Sturmovik as the medium.
> It took considerable effort, but in the end, was quite rewarding.


An interesting one! I wish we were able to make more videos like that. I really love that kind of videos.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 12, 2021)

Tomato Eins Productions said:


> The turret on the Beaufighter while tested operationally wasn't very successful and more or less killed the turret fighter concept. The Defiant while not spectacular, did it's job. An interesting job it undertook was as an ECM aircraft and then at the end of the war to test ejection seats.



It wasn't so much the Beaufighter fitted with the turret that killed the turret fighter, it was the performance of the night fighter Mosquito with the fixed forward firing armament built to F.21/40 that brought the turret fighter idea to its natural conclusion, its performance was demonstrably better than the turret armed Mosquito, the fourth prototype, so the night fighter specification F.18/40, to which the Beaufighter Mk.V was modified to quietly went unanswered. The Beaufighter Mk.V was going to be put into production, but its performance was no better than the Defiant it was intended on replacing.

Good work with the video clip, I look forward to the next one.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tomato Eins (Nov 16, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> In regards to an animation aspect, you may find this thread interesting:
> My New IL2 Video Research Thread...
> 
> Years ago, several of the forum members got together and recreated a historical event using IL-2: Sturmovik as the medium.
> It took considerable effort, but in the end, was quite rewarding.


That is really interesting and a very good video. A great watch and good job to everyone involved.👍✈An interesting one! I wish we were able to make more videos like that. I really love that kind of videos.



ARTESH said:


> I wish we were able to make more videos like that. I really love that kind of videos.


I agree, I would certainly be interested. It would be great to make more of that kind of video.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tomato Eins (Nov 16, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> It wasn't so much the Beaufighter fitted with the turret that killed the turret fighter, it was the performance of the night fighter Mosquito with the fixed forward firing armament built to F.21/40 that brought the turret fighter idea to its natural conclusion, its performance was demonstrably better than the turret armed Mosquito, the fourth prototype, so the night fighter specification F.18/40, to which the Beaufighter Mk.V was modified to quietly went unanswered. The Beaufighter Mk.V was going to be put into production, but its performance was no better than the Defiant it was intended on replacing.
> 
> Good work with the video clip, I look forward to the next one.


Ahhh yep that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for clarifying that. Thanks, interestingly the next one focuses on the Beaufighter. Not far away now 👍✈

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ARTESH (Nov 16, 2021)

Tomato Eins Productions said:


> I agree, I would certainly be interested. It would be great to make more of that kind of video.


Well, it just needs a little bit of good content, which is plenty here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tomato Eins (Dec 9, 2021)

ARTESH said:


> Well, it just needs a little bit of good content, which is plenty here.


very true, maybe one day👍✈


----------



## Tomato Eins (Dec 9, 2021)

New video. This time focusing on the Bristol Beaufighter. It is a long video, the longest I've done. I realise this breaks away a little from the idea of Tomato Eins to have short videos, but there is little out their on the Beaufighter, so I didn't want to over condense it and miss important details. I wanted to create a fairly dense and detail recorded of its service.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tomato Eins (Jan 23, 2022)

Mustangs in Australia! The latest video covers the history of the P-51 Mustang in Australia, including manufacturing of the Mustang by CAC as well as service with the RAAF. Australia was the only country outside of the USA to produce the mustang.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jan 23, 2022)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 23, 2022)

I did not know that any Mustangs were manufactured outside of the U.S.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 23, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I did not know that any Mustangs were manufactured outside of the U.S.


The Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation (CAC) manufactured quite a few native designs as well as manufacturing licenced P-51s.

One interesting design of theirs, which never got past the prototype stage, was the CA-15. It's a shame that it never had a chance, as it seems like it would have been a good performer.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 23, 2022)

And the CA-15 had a cool name, Kangaroo.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Jan 23, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I did not know that any Mustangs were manufactured outside of the U.S.


If you are interested in the Australian ones I strongly recommend this book - it is fabulous!! 464 pages worth.









https://www.redroomodels.com/product/southern-cross-mustangs/

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tomato Eins (Mar 4, 2022)

Here is a new video I just finished. A little different this time, as it focuses on an actual event rather than an specific aircraft. The event chosen to explore was the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, a pivotal battle in the fight for New Guinea. Historian Lex McAulay concluded that the Battle was “thirty minutes that changed the balance of power in New Guinea.”

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tomato Eins (Jun 18, 2022)

The Westland Lysander was Westland Aircraft's response to an 1934 Air Ministry specification calling for an army co-operation aircraft with short take-off and landing capabilities to replace the ageing Hawker Audax biplane. The rather unique looking Lysander, took to the air for the first time on the 15th of June 1936, and deliveries to the RAF began in June 1938. It saw service in France during the 1940, however was outclassed by the modern air force of Germany, suffering significant losses. The Lysander was quickly withdrawn from frontline service following the fall of France. While quickly relegated to secondary duties, it wouldn't be long before it found a new role, this time with the Special Operations Executive performing clandestine duties.. This was a role that the Lysander was quite successful in. During the war, the Lysander would also see service in Northern Africa and India/Burma. When production ended during the middle of the Second World War, 1,670 had been built.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 19, 2022)

Good one!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tomato Eins (Aug 29, 2022)

Gnomey said:


> Good one!


Thank you 👍✈️


----------



## Tomato Eins (Aug 29, 2022)

My most recent work on one of the workhorses of the bombing campaigns throughout the Second World War: The B-24 Liberator

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tomato Eins (Oct 13, 2022)

Latest video covers something a little different in the Horsa Glider. A very important airframe.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 13, 2022)

Nice one!


----------

