|Visitor comments (5) [Hide]||Post your own comments by rating the photo above!|
| A visitor from - posted Sun May 13, 2012:|
One of my favorite things about Airliners.net is the historical photographs that are posted -- I never knew what a Tudor looked like until I saw this photo. I'd never seen one. I disagree though that it was not successful because it was outdated - from everything I've read it was the loss history that made its customers uneasy about it and resulted in them relegating the machine to freight duty. Aircraft every bit as outdated were used right up into the 60's for passenger service (although maybe not so much on the long over-water routes). Interesting aircraft -- and story -- nonetheless. Thanks for posting the photo.
| A visitor from - posted Sun March 13, 2011:|
Its always great to see these old 50s aircraft and in an airlines colours aswell.
| A visitor from - posted Sun September 19, 2010:|
It wasn't successful because it was way out of date before it even entered service. Most other aircraft being made at this time had a nosewheel and transatlantic range. It was a complete anachronism. Also several were lost in accidents, two in the Bermuda Triangle I believe. Wasn't it the Tudor where the controls were rigged backwards in one of the prototypes and it crashed, killing the designer, Roy Chadwick?
| A visitor from Germany posted Mon March 29, 2010:|
Right, the tailwheel is so low the belly almost scratches the turf and the vertical stabilizer as a whole appears almost anachronistic. Funny design. Why didn't it survive on the market?
| A visitor from Canada posted Tue July 11, 2006:|
Nice aircraft but very, very low rearend.