Tomato Eins Productions

[Tomato Eins]

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]

Good stuff!

Thank you

 

[Tomato Eins]

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

 

[Tomato Eins]

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.

 

[SaparotRob]

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.

 

[Tomato Eins]

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

 

[Tomato Eins]

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.

 

[Gnomey]

Good one!

 

[SaparotRob]

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.

 

[Graeme]

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.

 

[Tomato Eins]

Good one!

Thank you ✈

 

[Tomato Eins]

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.

 

[Tomato Eins]

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]

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.

 

[Tomato Eins]

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

Thanks, I'll have a look

 

[Tomato Eins]

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.

 

[Tomato Eins]

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

 

[nuuumannn]

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.

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...

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.

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

Oooo, look forward to this one...

 

[Tomato Eins]

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"

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.

Oooo, look forward to this one...

✈

 

[nuuumannn]

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.