If you look at the Swedish SAAB J29, known as "Tunnan" (the barrel), you will see the same swept wings and central jet engine. The British de Havilland Ghost centrifugal compressor engine was used, giving the plane its signature barrel like shape. SAAB had gotten design data from German engineers who had fled to Switzerland at the end of WW2.
@@daftbence Even if you remove the German inspired projects from the list, the US still produced a ridiculously large number of experimental designs compared to any other nation.
The title is accurate - the X-5 was based heavily on German ideas. But it did not 'revolutionise aircraft design and performance in the 1950s'. It's function, as with the P1101 was to investigate one particular issue, the effects of different sweep angles. Remember that the first Bell X-5 didn't roll out the door until 4 years after, for instance, the F-86 Sabre. The F-86 itself made significant use of German WWII experience with swept-wing aerodynamics and in fact many of its design features were carried over directly from the Me-262. The F-86 was praised for its handling and outperformed the rather evil Bell X-5 on all parameters. So the Bell product was never going to compete for production contracts. What it did do, as intended, was provide useful data on the effects of variable sweep and to highlight some of the pitfalls. Similar work was occuring in the UK and in fact Barnes Wallis had already identified the CofG/CofL issue and identified a likely solution before the Bell X-5 had flown. So, yes, this did inform later development of hugely successful aircraft such as the F-111, F-14 and Tornado, but it is also significant that swing-wing designs did not revolutionise the aircraft industry but remained tied to very specific scenarios that had to combine short-field and high-speed requirements. By the mid-1980s the complexity and weight of swing-wing designs was no longer required as other solutions emerged. As an example, a Typhoon fighter/bomber uses less runway, out-turns and has a higher top speed than a Tornado, and by a considerable margin. And thank God Neil Armstrong walked away from the X-5 unscathed.
The F111 was our principal fighter bomber in Australia for many years and one of its stranger missions was the sinking if the Pong Su which was a heroin transportation ship our government decided would be better as a reef for fish than delivery of heroin into Australia. I'd love to see more on it and the iconic F14 Tomcat .
I will NEVER forget as an 8 year old lad back in the seventies when dad drove us up the Bogong road to have a Little hike at Mt Bogongs base when we were stopped 10 km short by the army - I was so excited - Tanks and troopers blocking the road to joint exercises between army and air force ! While we waited to turn around ( it was a thin only recently made bitumen road a thunderstorm approached - Or so I thought .... The entire experience lasting maybe 10 seconds from the beginning rumble and then at what flt like only 75 metres height coming up the valley ultra low roared a V flight of 3 of our F111s ( I was a builder of model military planes from the Sopwith Camel to the New and beautiful F16 and knew all the sillouettes so identified thin in a heartbeat .) Onwards over our heads and towards Australia's highest mountain they thundered from sight ! A true highlight of my childhood , A grand memory of times with my Dad whom would gladly concur this tale were he still with us . Namaste .
Very much like the swedish sweep wing Fighter jet j-29. First flight 1948. Even that one had a lot of accidents in the beginning due to the different handling compared to earlier airplanes. When the pilots learned how to fly it safely, accidents was still high, due to demanding excersis during the cold war.
I'm pretty sure it should have been a combination of the B-17 and B-24 bombers. The B-25 was a tactical bomber and rarely flew in formation with those four engine bombers.
@@Justanotherconsumer The Mitchell was a medium bomber that flew one long range mission only by removing all the normal equipment, armor plate, and all the defensive guns except for the top turret. Fuel cells were stuffed everywhere in the plane where space could be found, and the bomb load was limited to 2,000 pounds. This was repurposing a medium bomber into the long range strike role, not making it into a strategic bomber.
Still my favorite channel. Thanks for covering this lesser known x-plane. Interesting to get Scott Crossfield’s take on the aircraft and hear about Joe Engle’s experience. Both of those guys were some seriously skilled test pilots. Great video!
Great video, as always. One of my favorite things to do is take the aircraft showcased here and recreate them in Kerbal Space Program, although I haven't figured out variable swept wings yet. Don't have any DLC's, and although I thought the docking ports realignment in last update would be useful I have just gotten Kraken attacks whenever I try lol
I always enjoy these wonderful bits of history. Would you consider making an episode that covers the Liason/spotter aircraft of WWII L-series through Korea and Vietnam through the OV-10?
Great episode... Sometimes, the original idea does not work well because of un-expected issues, like what happened with the Messerschmidt P1101, and the eventual designs that follow the original failed designs, like the Bell X-5... But the ideas that did work well on those original designs, we're applied to other aircraft designs, like the swing-wings on the F-14's, the F-111's, the Soviet SU-17's, Panavia Tornado's.... This is the good that came out of other failed programs...
How about a film not of a warplanes but of what Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrid, etc did before becoming astronauts? You could do one on the late, great Capt Eric Brown of the Fleet Air Arm too. He holds 2 world records that are unlikely to ever be broken.
Never will forget, was walking along a beach south of Tweed Heads around 1999, one of these was doing a low level flight just below the speed of sound, just picked it up from the corner of my eye, then the noise hit me.
11:07 "...the British Tornado" with German markings. Because apparently Italy and West Germnay had no involvement in the project. And since it's only British I guess the Luftwaffe doesn't the biggest Tornado fleet in service neither...
Agreed. It's like when people say the American F-35B even though many of the key components are British and it has some minor componets parts from several countries.
@@teaandmedals well the difference is that with the F-35 it is more about quid pro quo - we’ll buy your F-35 if we get part of the supplier contracts - the Panavia Tornado, like the SEPECAT Jaguar or Concorde, is a multinational consortium like Airbus. The US does not need the UK to produce F-35s. (The complexity of actual supply chains is a different discussion).
Hi, could you do videos on search and rescue planes and operations by the Axis and the Allies. Seems the German pioneered these. Could be interesting to learn more about how they found and evacuated e.g. downed airmen.
The first prototype of the Saab 29 flew on September 1, 1948. The barrel was the first fighter aircraft in Sweden with arrow wings. Information about arrow wings came from Switzerland and is said to have included drawings of Messerschmitt's Me P1101, P1110, P1111 and P1112. SAAB's project manager Frid Wänström fetched these secret papers from Switzerland to Sweden in 1945. The documents came from engineers from Messerschmitt who fled to Switzerland at the end of World War II. Based on this documentation and experience (tests at Messerschmitt), SAAB was able to build the Barrel with arrow wings.
Their is a misunderstanding about who made the first multi transistor microchip. It was actually first designed to automatically control the wing sweep of the f-14. Because it was a top secret program the designer could not get patent rights.
My jr high art teacher was the grandson of the og Messerschmitt (Edit) I didn't know having an art teacher directly related to a German aviation designer would be so controversial.
@@treefittyfoh1562 The German war effort was cruel and their limited resources meant that slave labor became a viable method. I'm not saying that slavery is justified. But Messerschmidt was an aircraft engineer and surely he was talented at what he does.
Last plane I can think of with the ability to change wing sweep was the F14. Ever wonder why it is not being done today? The ability to chance wing sweep was a complex stop gap measure. Not needed today due to improvements in engines,structure,control. Served its purpose, then done. "Hey let's use the landing gear from the BF 109, never been any problems with it before".
The B-1 Lancer was introduced more than a decade after the F14 and variable sweep wing is a definitive feature of the B-1. The B-1s are still in service at least until 2036. The Russian equivalent Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack is also a variable sweep wing design and very much in active service.
@@tvgerbil1984 Hey, TV. I didn't say existing planes had to be destroyed. B1 was introduced in 1986. No new variable-sweep wing aircraft have been built since the Tu-160 (produced until 1992). Ask why. That group of technology (and complexity) is not need today.
@@danr5105 The US Navy did pursue the building of a navalized version of F-22 with swing wing technology to allow these Sea Raptors to operate safely from the relatively short decks of aircraft carriers under the so called NATF (Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter) program. The program was dropped in 1990s when the Soviet Union dissolved and the USN couldn't justify to have these Sea Raptors without a worthwhile adversary in sight. It wasn't really the swing wing technology being irrelevent, it was the geopolitics of the world.
@@tvgerbil1984 One factor that did reduce the need for swing wings (help on take-off) was reducing the weapon/fuel load out when comparing a F14D and a FA-18 Super Hornet. The F14 carried more fuel/arms (much bigger plane also)
While it worked, stability problems with the plane kept it from being turned into a real fighter. It wasn't until Grumman figured out how to sweep wings without changing the center of gravity that the whole idea finally became viable with the F-111.
Airplane nerd here. The CG change is marginal, the aerodynamic ‘center of pressure change is significant . As the wings sweep, the AC retreats, the plane becomes nose heavy, and up elevator trim required. (Moreover, the AC also retreats across the airfoil at near sonic speeds. This likely unknown to Bell...kind of a double whammy). Anyway Bell countered by sliding the wing forward. I don’t know how Grumman and General Dynamics compensated for the AC shift. In the years Between the X5 and the F111, engineers accrued volumes of knowledge on transonic/supersonic flow. Cheers
@@danbenson7587 Grumman worked on its own early swing fighter (F10F Jaguar) and ran into the same stability issues. What was learned was applied to the F-111 design (Grumman was the subcontractor for the swing wing subsystem) and that’s how the F-111 became the first plane to sweep its wings in flight without affecting flight stability.
@@Sacto1654 Thanks, I forgot about the Jaguar. I recollect the Jaguar was a dog. It had a stabilator whose incidence was controlled by a canard and the stick was operating the canard. Arrangement proved quirky. It proved fortunate the U.S. had war surplus test pilots as early jets burned through them. Cheers
On the B-1 the CG must be moved in response to wing sweep changes. This is done by transferring fuel from the forward and aft fuel tanks. Normally it is automatic but can be commanded manually. The manual command is what caused the crash of B-1A Ship 2 in Sep 1984. CG was set manually for a test then the wing sweep was brought forward. The co-pilot failed to move the CG and the crew kept cancelling the warnings for CG out of range. When the wings reached forward position the CG was badly out of limits aft and the aircraft departed. I was on the maintenance crew working ship 2 when it was lost.
I'd like to know more about the F1-11. Its long history of use and rather infamous ability to launch its payload, turn & outrun any retaliatory ground strike. Thanks, I like your channels. All fact, no fiction.
Early jets needed very long straight intakes and clean air in order to not compressor stall. This was the lowest drag configuration that met the intake geometry requirements.
Have read brief summaries on this plane. Never knew it was so problematic. I can understand them not considering the shift in the center of gravity and the tendency of the aircraft to spin. I believe they pumped fuel throughout the plane to compensate for the center of gravity change.
I'm wondering if the 291st combat engineer battalion was ever at the Oberammergau complex. I have pictures of my grandfather standing next to a Me262 & a stuka nightfighter variant. That are labeled Munich may 1945.
I am going to say no. The Yak 15 was a piston powered airframe with a Junkers Jumo 004 copy replacing the conventional engine. The placement is similar to the P1101 and many other German concepts. Seeing some German designs may have influenced powerplant placement(may have!). If the Mig 15 uses any German prototypes as it's basis then it would be the TA 183. On both counts the "official" Russian statement is that the designs were entirely their own. Although they admit to getting and copying British engines for the Mig, ones the then labour party sold to them.
I can’t see why the Soviets would copy the 1101, which was a heavily compromised design designed for a single purpose. Work on the 262 and others would have been a much more useful basis, as it was for the F-86.
@@speedandstyletony The Yak 15 was clearly a copy. They took a Yak-3 Yumo airframe (a piston engine fighter) put a German Jumo 004 jet engine in it and converted it to the Yak 15. Its exactly the same as a R1101 with the difference of the wings because they used a Yak 3 airframe because it was easier and faster. After that they developted the Mig-15, look at the top view of a R1101, its exactly the same as a Mig-15, wing angles and everything. Here's a good video to it it: th-cam.com/video/QLiUZcUTkPw/w-d-xo.html
The same German data led to the J29 Tunnan som vi säger här hemma. J29 looked like a pregnant pig on ground, but was apperntly good in the air. As the Swedish pilots always trained in realistic scenarions a lot of pilots was lost from the 40s and up to late 80s. Was it low level attack, then it was skimming the sea or the forest. The Soviets was always running in war mood, then the RSAF did the same. Top notch material, top notch pilots and top notch air combat leaders and system, they are still top notch, beware of the Gripen!
Was interesting to also see in this video the long closed Bell Aircraft factory in Buffalo,NY a facility I've passed by many times wondering what was built there unaware the X planes were made there🤔
The Westland-Hill Pterodactyl IV of 1931 was a tailless design whose lightly swept wings could vary their sweep through a small angle during flight. This allowed longitudinal trim in the absence of a separate horizontal stabiliser. The concept would later be incorporated in Barnes Wallis's wing-controlled aerodyne. During the Second World War, researchers in Nazi Germany discovered the advantages of the swept wing for transonic flight, and also its disadvantages at lower speeds. The Messerschmitt Me P.1101 was an experimental jet fighter which was, in part, developed to investigate the benefits of varying wing sweep. Its sweep angle mechanism, which could only be adjusted on the ground between three separate positions of 30, 40, and 45 degrees, was intended for testing only, and was unsuitable for combat operations., as stated.
So, you did a version of the B-25 (gunship), but what im wondering is... Aside from the more Famous B-25, there was also the B-26, which, just by visual comparison, the only different was the tail configuration. Id be interesting to see a video on the B-26 and why it is seemingly "less popular" (or less known") than the B-25 (ie what were its short comings vs the B-25 and advantages, if any).
What about the F-111? ….. oh wait, you got there with a minute to go :-) We can wonder how the X-5 would have gone with the stall if it were modified to have a t-tail. A rhetorical question I guess…. Great video, thank you!
I would love to see a vid about the Fokker G.1 - a P-38 like pre-WW2 design of the Dutch manufacturer. Perhaps a little too obscure, but still, an interesting subject.
not significant: first in service was the Me 262 (3 months before Gloster Meteor), but the first complete Meteor III squadron was constitued in 1944, before the first Me 262 staffel...But because the alliees did have air superiority, was the development from the Meteor slow down despite better engines was built (like the RR Nene end 1944), so the far improved Meteor 8 was lauch only in 1948 (had a longer fuselage for better stability and better engines,was faster than the Me 262)
B-1 bomb has the swept wing concept and it works very well for a low flying, with radar jamming technology, that would work well as a gunship for Special operations. I beautiful lady, with a nasty sting.
The fall of France 1940 enter one Payen PA 22 a French delta canard design that actually flew. This type of design is still being used in modern fighters to this very day while the variable geometry wing has fallen from favor. Almost all modern European fighters are of the canard delta configuration.
@@kevindavis5966 I once worked for Mercedes. (I wasn't slave labor. I did get paid) It is clear to me why Germany had no chance of winning WWII. They could never hope to match U.S production. Lets talk about the Great German Aircraft carrier fleet that never existed.
A small point, but: The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics was referred to by its initials--"En-ay-cee-ay," not "nackah." (A common mistake: as a precursor to NASA, it is often assumed that the prior initialism was pronounced similarly) Otherwise referred to within the aeronautics community as "the Committee."
If you look at the Swedish SAAB J29, known as "Tunnan" (the barrel), you will see the same swept wings and central jet engine. The British de Havilland Ghost centrifugal compressor engine was used, giving the plane its signature barrel like shape.
SAAB had gotten design data from German engineers who had fled to Switzerland at the end of WW2.
As for Neil Armstrong, I’m sure he had an obscure and unremarkable career after this.
Neil who?
Yah, he would later go on to become an astronaut during his work on X-15 program. So, not a bad career.
I think you mean Stretch Armstrong.
@@dragthatsht r/wooosh i think you are wanted there
@@aidanconnors2450 I think that is meant for you, bud
Bell sure made a ton of X-planes back in the day.
@Brian Roome And they can thank the Germans for that, since a boatload of ideas came from them lol
@@daftbence Even if you remove the German inspired projects from the list, the US still produced a ridiculously large number of experimental designs compared to any other nation.
That's why you also have the x-factor
@@daftbence And the UK too.
Razor made a ton of scooters too
The title is accurate - the X-5 was based heavily on German ideas. But it did not 'revolutionise aircraft design and performance in the 1950s'. It's function, as with the P1101 was to investigate one particular issue, the effects of different sweep angles. Remember that the first Bell X-5 didn't roll out the door until 4 years after, for instance, the F-86 Sabre. The F-86 itself made significant use of German WWII experience with swept-wing aerodynamics and in fact many of its design features were carried over directly from the Me-262. The F-86 was praised for its handling and outperformed the rather evil Bell X-5 on all parameters. So the Bell product was never going to compete for production contracts. What it did do, as intended, was provide useful data on the effects of variable sweep and to highlight some of the pitfalls. Similar work was occuring in the UK and in fact Barnes Wallis had already identified the CofG/CofL issue and identified a likely solution before the Bell X-5 had flown. So, yes, this did inform later development of hugely successful aircraft such as the F-111, F-14 and Tornado, but it is also significant that swing-wing designs did not revolutionise the aircraft industry but remained tied to very specific scenarios that had to combine short-field and high-speed requirements. By the mid-1980s the complexity and weight of swing-wing designs was no longer required as other solutions emerged. As an example, a Typhoon fighter/bomber uses less runway, out-turns and has a higher top speed than a Tornado, and by a considerable margin.
And thank God Neil Armstrong walked away from the X-5 unscathed.
Awesome as usual, thank you for helping me learn about obscure and interesting things
As obscure as these aircraft were, honestly, we wouldn't have the famous and well-known planes of today without them.
I visited Wright Patterson AFB museum this weekend, looked at this bird too. Thanks for giving me more background information.
The F111 was our principal fighter bomber in Australia for many years and one of its stranger missions was the sinking if the Pong Su which was a heroin transportation ship our government decided would be better as a reef for fish than delivery of heroin into Australia.
I'd love to see more on it and the iconic F14 Tomcat .
I will NEVER forget as an 8 year old lad back in the seventies when dad drove us up the Bogong road to have a Little hike at Mt Bogongs base when we were stopped 10 km short by the army - I was so excited -
Tanks and troopers blocking the road to joint exercises between army and air force !
While we waited to turn around ( it was a thin only recently made bitumen road a thunderstorm approached -
Or so I thought ....
The entire experience lasting maybe 10 seconds from the beginning rumble and then at what flt like only 75 metres height coming up the valley ultra low roared a V flight of 3 of our F111s ( I was a builder of model military planes from the Sopwith Camel to the New and beautiful F16 and knew all the sillouettes so identified thin in a heartbeat .)
Onwards over our heads and towards Australia's highest mountain they thundered from sight !
A true highlight of my childhood ,
A grand memory of times with my Dad whom would gladly concur this tale were he still with us .
Namaste .
Very much like the swedish sweep wing Fighter jet j-29. First flight 1948. Even that one had a lot of accidents in the beginning due to the different handling compared to earlier airplanes. When the pilots learned how to fly it safely, accidents was still high, due to demanding excersis during the cold war.
The CIA would not had been happy about the sinking of a drug ship.
@@Desertduleler_88 lol
@@Desertduleler_88 Why would the CIA be upset about the Aussies hitting a rival gang member's distribution network??
I'm pretty sure it should have been a combination of the B-17 and B-24 bombers. The B-25 was a tactical bomber and rarely flew in formation with those four engine bombers.
Usual mistake, I'm sure the narrator meant B-17 and B-24.
Doolittle did fly it as a strategic weapon, but that was an oddity.
@@Justanotherconsumer The Mitchell was a medium bomber that flew one long range mission only by removing all the normal equipment, armor plate, and all the defensive guns except for the top turret. Fuel cells were stuffed everywhere in the plane where space could be found, and the bomb load was limited to 2,000 pounds. This was repurposing a medium bomber into the long range strike role, not making it into a strategic bomber.
Still my favorite channel. Thanks for covering this lesser known x-plane. Interesting to get Scott Crossfield’s take on the aircraft and hear about Joe Engle’s experience. Both of those guys were some seriously skilled test pilots. Great video!
Thankyou, another factual , accurate and informative doc of a fascinating period of history..! Narrated, and edited wonderfully. !
Great video, as always. One of my favorite things to do is take the aircraft showcased here and recreate them in Kerbal Space Program, although I haven't figured out variable swept wings yet. Don't have any DLC's, and although I thought the docking ports realignment in last update would be useful I have just gotten Kraken attacks whenever I try lol
Infernal Robotics. I made it working for both wings and tilt rotors
@@hippomormor ah, good idea, haven't looked to mods yet
My brain: This kicks ass
My body: *Grooves to the tunes*
I always enjoy these wonderful bits of history. Would you consider making an episode that covers the Liason/spotter aircraft of WWII L-series through Korea and Vietnam through the OV-10?
Great episode... Sometimes, the original idea does not work well because of un-expected issues, like what happened with the Messerschmidt P1101, and the eventual designs that follow the original failed designs, like the Bell X-5... But the ideas that did work well on those original designs, we're applied to other aircraft designs, like the swing-wings on the F-14's, the F-111's, the Soviet SU-17's, Panavia Tornado's.... This is the good that came out of other failed programs...
As a kid in the 60`s, I had a model of the X5 along with all American aircraft at that time hanging from the ceiling by fishing line.
How about a film not of a warplanes but of what Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrid, etc did before becoming astronauts? You could do one on the late, great Capt Eric Brown of the Fleet Air Arm too. He holds 2 world records that are unlikely to ever be broken.
At fully unswept form, it is one of the coolest looking aircraft I've ever seen.
I remember when Australia had F-111s, excellent fighter bombers.
I worked on f111s. They took a long time to get off the ground. But wonderful in flight
Never will forget, was walking along a beach south of Tweed Heads around 1999, one of these was doing a low level flight just below the speed of sound, just picked it up from the corner of my eye, then the noise hit me.
@@vintagetintrader1062 With after-burners fired up ?
Was bright day, did not pick the afterburner being on, it happened so quick, just walking along a squeaky sand beach than ‘bang’ and gone again
11:07 "...the British Tornado" with German markings. Because apparently Italy and West Germnay had no involvement in the project. And since it's only British I guess the Luftwaffe doesn't the biggest Tornado fleet in service neither...
Just look up Panavia.
@@TK421-53 why aren't you at your post? Had to ask.
Agreed. It's like when people say the American F-35B even though many of the key components are British and it has some minor componets parts from several countries.
@@teaandmedals well the difference is that with the F-35 it is more about quid pro quo - we’ll buy your F-35 if we get part of the supplier contracts - the Panavia Tornado, like the SEPECAT Jaguar or Concorde, is a multinational consortium like Airbus. The US does not need the UK to produce F-35s. (The complexity of actual supply chains is a different discussion).
Wow! your videos are so fascinating. I'm pulled right into your narration and the pictorials, historical footage, actual blueprints are excellent.
I'd love to see a modern swept wing fighter. I fell on love with the F14 Tomcat when I was a kid and love the idea.
Doubt you'll see another VG wing, as they can now change the wing shape.
The P-1101 would have been finished and tested in Germany, but the French would not release the drawings. It's good to know how soon this started.
Never knew Neil was involved. Learned something. Thank ye.
He also flew the X-15 rocket plane.
Hi, could you do videos on search and rescue planes and operations by the Axis and the Allies. Seems the German pioneered these. Could be interesting to learn more about how they found and evacuated e.g. downed airmen.
I heard that Kurt Tank was working for both Argentinian and Indian government for their aircraft after the war.
Yeah, he designed the FMA Pulqui for Argentina and the Hindustan Marut for India
The first prototype of the Saab 29 flew on September 1, 1948. The barrel was the first fighter aircraft in Sweden with arrow wings. Information about arrow wings came from Switzerland and is said to have included drawings of Messerschmitt's Me P1101, P1110, P1111 and P1112. SAAB's project manager Frid Wänström fetched these secret papers from Switzerland to Sweden in 1945. The documents came from engineers from Messerschmitt who fled to Switzerland at the end of World War II. Based on this documentation and experience (tests at Messerschmitt), SAAB was able to build the Barrel with arrow wings.
Their is a misunderstanding about who made the first multi transistor microchip. It was actually first designed to automatically control the wing sweep of the f-14. Because it was a top secret program the designer could not get patent rights.
My jr high art teacher was the grandson of the og Messerschmitt
(Edit) I didn't know having an art teacher directly related to a German aviation designer would be so controversial.
OG Messerschmitt is genius
We're talking about the brightest mind in aviation during ww2, maybe ever... if only we had him on our side the war would have been won overnight.
Nothing like slave labor to keep your factories running right. What a genius!
(X) Doubt
@@treefittyfoh1562 The German war effort was cruel and their limited resources meant that slave labor became a viable method. I'm not saying that slavery is justified. But Messerschmidt was an aircraft engineer and surely he was talented at what he does.
Last plane I can think of with the ability to change wing sweep was the F14. Ever wonder why it is not being done today? The ability to chance wing sweep was a complex stop gap measure. Not needed today due to improvements in engines,structure,control. Served its purpose, then done.
"Hey let's use the landing gear from the BF 109, never been any problems with it before".
The B-1 Lancer was introduced more than a decade after the F14 and variable sweep wing is a definitive feature of the B-1. The B-1s are still in service at least until 2036. The Russian equivalent Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack is also a variable sweep wing design and very much in active service.
@@tvgerbil1984 Hey, TV. I didn't say existing planes had to be destroyed. B1 was introduced in 1986.
No new variable-sweep wing aircraft have been built since the Tu-160 (produced until 1992). Ask why. That group of technology (and complexity) is not need today.
@@danr5105 The US Navy did pursue the building of a navalized version of F-22 with swing wing technology to allow these Sea Raptors to operate safely from the relatively short decks of aircraft carriers under the so called NATF (Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter) program. The program was dropped in 1990s when the Soviet Union dissolved and the USN couldn't justify to have these Sea Raptors without a worthwhile adversary in sight. It wasn't really the swing wing technology being irrelevent, it was the geopolitics of the world.
@@tvgerbil1984 One factor that did reduce the need for swing wings (help on take-off) was reducing the weapon/fuel load out when comparing a F14D and a FA-18 Super Hornet. The F14 carried more fuel/arms (much bigger plane also)
What about Bone? Another great swing wing plane.
The B-1 is a hangar queen.
@@kevintemple245 Nothing more impressive than a Bone with full afterburners peal up off the runway and do a high G u-turn
@@rakmanyt if it even gets to the runway. Seriously, the maintenance on those things is atrocious. One day flying out of a month. Maybe.
While it worked, stability problems with the plane kept it from being turned into a real fighter. It wasn't until Grumman figured out how to sweep wings without changing the center of gravity that the whole idea finally became viable with the F-111.
Airplane nerd here. The CG change is marginal, the aerodynamic ‘center of pressure change is significant . As the wings sweep, the AC retreats, the plane becomes nose heavy, and up elevator trim required. (Moreover, the AC also retreats across the airfoil at near sonic speeds. This likely unknown to Bell...kind of a double whammy). Anyway Bell countered by sliding the wing forward.
I don’t know how Grumman and General Dynamics compensated for the AC shift. In the years Between the X5 and the F111, engineers accrued volumes of knowledge on transonic/supersonic flow. Cheers
@@danbenson7587 Grumman worked on its own early swing fighter (F10F Jaguar) and ran into the same stability issues. What was learned was applied to the F-111 design (Grumman was the subcontractor for the swing wing subsystem) and that’s how the F-111 became the first plane to sweep its wings in flight without affecting flight stability.
@@Sacto1654 Thanks, I forgot about the Jaguar. I recollect the Jaguar was a dog. It had a stabilator whose incidence was controlled by a canard and the stick was operating the canard. Arrangement proved quirky.
It proved fortunate the U.S. had war surplus test pilots as early jets burned through them. Cheers
On the B-1 the CG must be moved in response to wing sweep changes. This is done by transferring fuel from the forward and aft fuel tanks. Normally it is automatic but can be commanded manually. The manual command is what caused the crash of B-1A Ship 2 in Sep 1984. CG was set manually for a test then the wing sweep was brought forward. The co-pilot failed to move the CG and the crew kept cancelling the warnings for CG out of range. When the wings reached forward position the CG was badly out of limits aft and the aircraft departed. I was on the maintenance crew working ship 2 when it was lost.
Another site featured this German aircraft 2 days ago. Yours more in depth and has nice follow through.
I'd like to know more about the F1-11. Its long history of use and rather infamous ability to launch its payload, turn & outrun any retaliatory ground strike. Thanks, I like your channels. All fact, no fiction.
Extremely interesting look at the pioneers of variable swep wing designs....
Got to love how early Jets had open noses like the designers were still thinking "that's where the propeller goes."
To be fair, that's where the clean air is.
Early jets needed very long straight intakes and clean air in order to not compressor stall. This was the lowest drag configuration that met the intake geometry requirements.
Later on, that's where the radar went and the noses tended to be closed up.
I hear that Armstrong fellow went on to great success as a teacher at the University of Cincinnati. Good for him :)
I thought Barnes Wallis did most of the work on swing wing including the control system
From behind, that looks remarkably like an A-6. (From the front, the intake makes it look totally different.)
So the P1101 had twin jet engine intakes in the cockpit? Would have been interesting for the pilot!
Have read brief summaries on this plane. Never knew it was so problematic. I can understand them not considering the shift in the center of gravity and the tendency of the aircraft to spin. I believe they pumped fuel throughout the plane to compensate for the center of gravity change.
Seems like you've gotten your audio issues worked out for the most part. Good. Great video.
I'm wondering if the 291st combat engineer battalion was ever at the Oberammergau complex. I have pictures of my grandfather standing next to a Me262 & a stuka nightfighter variant. That are labeled Munich may 1945.
Very misleading! Variable swept wings does not = flapping! Go play Flappy Bird again for a reminder of what flapping is!
I'm going to the Airforce Museum new week on vacation! I'm looking forward to it. And now I know this is there also. Cool!
Check out the xb 70 on display! Lots of really cool an rare stuff there.
You should do a lengthy video on the Gotha 229/ Ho 229 , always interested in that airframe.
If they have not been done on this channel do the other wing change vehicles since that would be the next story to show.
Great video thanks for making them
The shape and design kinda reminds me of the Vaught F-8 Crusader! Awesome early swept-wing aircraft!!
The F-8 Crusader had a variable incidence wing, but not variable sweep.
You need glasses...
Where can I find the music they use as background music?
_AMAZING!!!_ 2:37 The engine inlets were located in the cockpit!
Love the synth music!!
I am learning so much from these videos, your research is very detailed and helpful.
I remember trying to study the P1101 in college in the early 90s it was hard to track back then
I remember making a solid model of it out of balsa wood . Many years ago this was before plastic kits were ever thought of .
I'm surprised that you failed to mention the Saab J-29 Tunnan, so similar to the aircraft under discussion here, and over 500 examples built !!!
See for yourself : th-cam.com/video/GDWsHo3W7-c/w-d-xo.html
Four 30mm cannons? Were they shooting at dragons?
Wow, the crash wreckage of the X-5 looks remarkably like the crash wreckage of the X-2.
Using the X-2 crash scene as a stand in at the end hurts credibility
The P1101 was also inspiration for the Yak-15 and later the Mig-15
I am going to say no. The Yak 15 was a piston powered airframe with a Junkers Jumo 004 copy replacing the conventional engine. The placement is similar to the P1101 and many other German concepts. Seeing some German designs may have influenced powerplant placement(may have!). If the Mig 15 uses any German prototypes as it's basis then it would be the TA 183. On both counts the "official" Russian statement is that the designs were entirely their own. Although they admit to getting and copying British engines for the Mig, ones the then labour party sold to them.
I can’t see why the Soviets would copy the 1101, which was a heavily compromised design designed for a single purpose. Work on the 262 and others would have been a much more useful basis, as it was for the F-86.
@@speedandstyletony The Yak 15 was clearly a copy. They took a Yak-3 Yumo airframe (a piston engine fighter) put a German Jumo 004 jet engine in it and converted it to the Yak 15. Its exactly the same as a R1101 with the difference of the wings because they used a Yak 3 airframe because it was easier and faster.
After that they developted the Mig-15, look at the top view of a R1101, its exactly the same as a Mig-15, wing angles and everything.
Here's a good video to it it: th-cam.com/video/QLiUZcUTkPw/w-d-xo.html
Scanning video your research goes far beyond most documentaries thank you
It resembles an A6 Intruder in its general shape from above.
The main US bombers were the B-17 and B-24, not the B-25. The B-25 was a medium bomber, the others were heavy bombers.
B-1 has moveable wings, awesome aircraft.
Yes it must be younger brother of this thing
The Bell X5 really looks a lot like the Saab J29. The J29 sure is a good plane though
The same German data led to the J29 Tunnan som vi säger här hemma. J29 looked like a pregnant pig on ground, but was apperntly good in the air. As the Swedish pilots always trained in realistic scenarions a lot of pilots was lost from the 40s and up to late 80s. Was it low level attack, then it was skimming the sea or the forest. The Soviets was always running in war mood, then the RSAF did the same. Top notch material, top notch pilots and top notch air combat leaders and system, they are still top notch, beware of the Gripen!
Was interesting to also see in this video the long closed Bell Aircraft factory in Buffalo,NY a facility I've passed by many times wondering what was built there unaware the X planes were made there🤔
It should be noted that Walter Dornberger worked for Bell Aircraft in Buffalo , NY during the periods that this plane was being developed.
The Westland-Hill Pterodactyl IV of 1931 was a tailless design whose lightly swept wings could vary their sweep through a small angle during flight. This allowed longitudinal trim in the absence of a separate horizontal stabiliser. The concept would later be incorporated in Barnes Wallis's wing-controlled aerodyne.
During the Second World War, researchers in Nazi Germany discovered the advantages of the swept wing for transonic flight, and also its disadvantages at lower speeds. The Messerschmitt Me P.1101 was an experimental jet fighter which was, in part, developed to investigate the benefits of varying wing sweep. Its sweep angle mechanism, which could only be adjusted on the ground between three separate positions of 30, 40, and 45 degrees, was intended for testing only, and was unsuitable for combat operations., as stated.
So, you did a version of the B-25 (gunship), but what im wondering is... Aside from the more Famous B-25, there was also the B-26, which, just by visual comparison, the only different was the tail configuration. Id be interesting to see a video on the B-26 and why it is seemingly "less popular" (or less known") than the B-25 (ie what were its short comings vs the B-25 and advantages, if any).
Another great video, although I find the background music annoying.
Another interesting video. But can we please get a list of music used in this one?
I want to learn more about the Ta-183 if you haven't already done a video about that.
Hey! You forgot to mention the F-111 which paved the way for the Navy's F-14. Only at the end was it mentioned after the F-14 which it preceded.
Hey Dark Skies, have you seen the Soviet vva-14 aircraft ? Ide like to see your take on it, its very hard to find much info on it & footage.
XF-10F Jaguar encountered the same problems. Boy seems like everything Neil Armstrong flew broke or it was an eventful flight.
the grandfather of F-14 Tomcat
What about the F-111? ….. oh wait, you got there with a minute to go :-)
We can wonder how the X-5 would have gone with the stall if it were modified to have a t-tail. A rhetorical question I guess…. Great video, thank you!
Suggestion: the AMX A1 jet
I would love to see a vid about the Fokker G.1 - a P-38 like pre-WW2 design of the Dutch manufacturer. Perhaps a little too obscure, but still, an interesting subject.
Want the Meteor the worlds first jet fighter?
The 262 was the first active one though.
not significant: first in service was the Me 262 (3 months before Gloster Meteor), but the first complete Meteor III squadron was constitued in 1944, before the first Me 262 staffel...But because the alliees did have air superiority, was the development from the Meteor slow down despite better engines was built (like the RR Nene end 1944), so the far improved Meteor 8 was lauch only in 1948 (had a longer fuselage for better stability and better engines,was faster than the Me 262)
Not just the X-5, look at the Saab 29 Tunnan. Another duplicate of the same Messerschmitt aircraft but without variable geometry.
Love your chanel, what about the Junkers Ju 287?
Max Headroom's Bryce Lynch : "There are no experimental failures. There's only more data!"
The French were so thankful for being liberated from the Nazis that they immediately went back to being their usual helpful uptight selves...SIGH
And after the losses of WW2, immediately decided to go mess with the Vietnamese. That went about as well for them...
@@JohnDoe-pv2iu Touche' ! LMAO
Could you please provide links to the music you use?
Love the title change from flapping wings to secret Nazi Technology
Amazingly looks VERY similar to the Russian MiG. 15
How about videos on the P-38 Lightning and P-47 Thunderbolt ???
Looks VERY much like the Yakovlev fighter from early in the postwar period! Same set of blueprints written in German?
I always thought that was a Kirt Tank design?
Looks very similar to the F-86 Sabre.
Do a video about the Swedish J29 flying barrel. Very similar an flew in 1946.
It took a lot of courage to be a test pilot and fly those X-planes...
B-1 bomb has the swept wing concept and it works very well for a low flying, with radar jamming technology, that would work well as a gunship for Special operations.
I beautiful lady, with a nasty sting.
I forgot about the B-1B when I commented on the F-111
This is a weird question but is it possible to get the links to the music that was used?
Ha, the ad before the prototype segment was a stiff of whiskey, which I’d need before testing
How about a video about the ACH-47 Guns A Go-Go?
Como sempre revoluções tecnológicas são: MADE IN GERMANY!
Das Deutsche qualitat
@@TheRedAirOn You've clearly never owned a VW, BMW, or Mercedes in the last few decades. Das Deutsche qualitat is suchen.
The fall of France 1940 enter one Payen PA 22 a French delta canard design that actually flew. This type of design is still being used in modern fighters to this very day while the variable geometry wing has fallen from favor. Almost all modern European fighters are of the canard delta configuration.
@@kevindavis5966 I once worked for Mercedes. (I wasn't slave labor. I did get paid) It is clear to me why Germany had no chance of winning WWII. They could never hope to match U.S production. Lets talk about the Great German Aircraft carrier fleet that never existed.
A small point, but: The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics was referred to by its initials--"En-ay-cee-ay," not "nackah." (A common mistake: as a precursor to NASA, it is often assumed that the prior initialism was pronounced similarly) Otherwise referred to within the aeronautics community as "the Committee."
Mercy upon those who love syllables.
Please make more videos about Russian (Soviet Era) planes, such as Sukhois.
Is it just me or is it suspicious that the Swedish J-29 Tunnan look extremely similar to the P.1011 and the Bell
The Saab 29 was also developed from the P1101