Pinned comment disappeared, here is a new one. F.A.Q Section Q: Do you take aircraft requests? A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:) Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others? A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both. Q: Will you include video footage in your videos, or just photos? A: Video footage is very expensive to licence, if I can find footage in the public domain I will try to use it, but a lot of it is hoarded by licencing studies (British Pathe, Periscope films etc). In the future I may be able to afford clips :) Q: Why do you sometimes feature images/screenshots from flight simulators? A: Sometimes there are not a lot of photos available for certain aircraft, so I substitute this with digital images that are as accurate as possible. Feel free to leave you questions below - I may not be able to answer all of them, but I will keep my eyes open :)
My friend in all of youtube l have my three go to first channel's #1 is Mark Feldon #2 is your channel #3 is Ed Nash...All of these being on your side of the pond....l thank you very much....Shoe🇺🇸
My suggestion would be German nightfighters, such as Ju-88 C and G Variants - It's kinda weird to me how essentially the same plane design makes for a bomber at daytime and a fighter at night (although that was the case with british planes too) - or the purpose bulit He-219
What I got from watching Rex's videos is just how much this era of aviation was wild. Planes would be criticised on proposal for being too advanced, with too many untested features, have a rocky development ironing out said issues and then after finally entering service... They were already hopelessly obsolete.
I would think that people who fly tend to be either solidly conservative when it comes to design changes or wild dreamers. The technology was changing almost on a daily basis. George sees something, thinks, "Bah, that's pretty inefficient/clunky/heavy, I can do bettter, piece o cake" etc and goes home, doodles a new idea and whomps it up in his garage and hangs it on HIS plane. Charlie sees Georges new Idea and the cycle repeats. The guys with the bucks aren't too sure, so let it ride til Charlie and George have proven it to work, then hem and haw about it some more. Sort of " if it ain't broke, don't fix it". It was a wide open field and they were running into new experiences all the time. And new dangers like control reversal. Tuck under. Whirl mode. Stresses never even considered. Going from wood to steel. Steel to aluminum. When I started flying fibre glass was used for cowlings and wheel spats. 10 years later I walked into a show at Pearson Airport in Toronto and my chin hit the floor and stayed there. A complete, airworthy sport plane made of fibre glas. How about one with the wings carved out of styrofoam blocks between two wood spars and covered over with thin plywood? Ken Rand's KR-1. How about a Volksplane? Powered by a VW engine. Oh, but that was old thinking. The Pietenpol used a Ford car engine in the 30s. Dig deep enough and you will be amazed by the ingenuity of flyers. Conservative as a rock on one hand, wildly bold and experimenting on the other.
It was during a time of unknowns, where no one really knows how far plane designs can go, what the right doctrines were. The basic principles of aerodynamics becoming more and more clear as designs were placed in wind tunnels, so there was always potential to discover new theories, new laws, that you can design a new aircraft to exploit. That's why development look seemingly so fast because there was just so many low lying fruits to pick. When a field of science and engineering becomes more mature, designs start to converge and doctrines start to become established because you can't really run away from physics and logistics and that's when it seem development start to drop off.
@@gelinrefira Crazy isn't it? To think that a mere 20 years after this era we would see the B-52 enter service, the plane which is now slated to serve until the 2040s...
@@sabrekai8706 Being conservative while choosing your airplane parts seems like a reasonable idea. I'd rather have a new part fail in someone elses plane so the flaw can be fixed before I install it.
Considering Mitsubishi engineers were taught by Junkers directly, I think it's unfair to call it "copying" but rather they were following the same practices and similar techniques they were taught to use when designing an aircraft.
@@MidwestFarmToys That "famous for" is something came from racism. A lot of stuff made during the Inter-War to WW2 even got waved away as "impossible" by westerner because they were made by the Japanese despite the fact example existed. If Japan is "famous for copying" then the US and other countries should be even more famous for copying, a lot of German and Japanese tech got copied in various ways to develop post war systems. German Jets aspects for further jet development, I-400s sub for further sub development, I can go on....
@@MidwestFarmToys You do understand there is a difference between copying and producing foreign designs under licence right? And that many "copied" Japanese designs were simply projects they contracted out to European designers when they didn't have the time or money to make a design entirely on their own.
look at the very first aircraft in WW1 in 1914 vs at the end in 1918. Then look at the planes of WW2. Then consider the aircraft developed in the 10-20yrs after WW2 such as the C-130, U-2, F-104, F-100, B-52, F-8, F-86, F-106, A-4, A-12/SR-71, X-1, X-15, English Electric Lightning, Boeing 707, and many many more. Largely by 1962 we had achieved a level of understanding and design that continues to this day. Everything since then has been incremental. Between 1914 and 1969 humans took aviation from barely flyable to the extreme. we're making progress once again, but very little of it is truly revolutionary that wasn't already figured out for the most part by the 1960s.
Observe the radical expansion of computer tech in the 1980s through early 2000s. Asymptotic rise in capability during the early years in a new tech paradigm is a pretty well established trend.
I was elated to be called out in the last video with the Walrus mention. I might also mention my favourite twin engined floatplane is the Grumman Goose. Just look at it. It looks like a toy. Brilliant.
The Goose was a nice little ship. Ever watch Tales of the Golden Monkey? But my two favorites are the Dornier Wal, and the PBY. Those two opened up air routes all over the world. The age of the seaplane will be forever engraved in my mind as the golden age of passenger flight too, just watch Indiana Jones and the Lost Ark. The scene of him hopping onto a Clipper and flying half way across the world, hitting stops in places you only dreamed of. Now it's spam in a can, 30 inches between you and the smelly goof in front of you who insists on putting his seat back in your lap.
One thing I've wondered about aircraft like type, with large open cockpits: Didn't rain and snow, in the long term, harm the equipment in the cockpits, beyond being uncomfortable for the crews?
Not as much as one might think. The instrument panel and other controls are typically forward of the pilot’s seat or protected under the fuselage. If the space was available on base they’d hangar the planes in rain. if it wasn’t available, the ground crew would hopefully put a tarp over the cockpit. Some of these planes came with leather covers for the cockpit. I used to work ground crew at an airport. One of our tenants had a PT-17 stearman and I asked him, he laughed and explained it to me.
@@trooperdgb9722 Vacuum gauges were five years in the future when the Ki-1 flew. Instruments would have been a tachometer for each engine, oil pressure and temperature, altimeter and airspeed…
Rex.... Question, it's a big one and I'm sure a giant amount of work. Would you be interested in doing a research video on the A6 Intruder? It's a big ask I know.
Sooo. the old disused corrugated iron outdoor dunny we had in Kalgoorlie was actually a Ki 1. That makes a lot of sense actually; it flew better than the indoor toilet.
Aviation advanced at a truly blinding speed. December of 1903, the first heavier than air flight. 1918, the first all metal mono plane. 1930s, trans Atlantic and Trans Pacific flights. 1944, First operational jet fighter. 1947, Mach 1. 1953, Mach 2, 1956 Mach 3. 1903, 1 pilot. 1908, pilot and 1 pax. It goes on from there with amazing advances every couple of years. Not surprising that Mitsubishi went from a clunker like the Ki-1 to the Ki-21 in such a short time. And lets not forget the Mitsubishi Nell, another very successful aircraft.
@@LarS1963 True, but the really reliable passenger services didn't start until later. Two guys in a Vimy had balls of steel but as a commercial venture it had a while to go yet.
I was reading Robin Neilland's book on the WWII bomber offensive against Germany; he remarks that Hap Arnold was taught to fly at the Wright brothers' school in 1911, and ended WWII with four engined B 29s under his command. I think there may be equivalents in other nations too, who started in stick and string pioneer aircraft, and who saw operational jet aircraft in the span of their own career?
Japanese Industry: So you want us to build a "heavy bomber ? IJA: Yes of course ! Japanese Industry: And by Heavy bomber you mean a Light Bomber in any other country ? IJA: Yes of course !
Side note: You can catch a glimpse of a Ki-1 being assembled in the background at Mitsubishi in the animated feature film The Wind Rises by Hayao Miyazaki's Studio Ghibli.
Interesting registration on the Swedish built Junkers K-37: S-AABL. Hmmm, where have I seen those first four letters in Sweden? Wikipedia is not showing me an actual connection, however.
Sadly, we only advanced that fast because we had to one up each other in terms of ways to blow each other up. Aviation advancment seems pretty slow right now because we dont have a cold war or a world war
The 20's to the mid 30's is considered to be the golden age of aircraft design with engine development and streamlining making huge leaps. Cutting edge became obsolete in just a few years.
All interwar tanks, planes, ships, etc are very interesting and cool looking. Especially since I build, 1/35 armor, and 1/48 planes, Anyways thanks for these videos!
1/72 is the one true scale!!! Actually, I think 1/48 is a great intermediate state, not too big, not too small. If I get any fumblier I may just start fiddling with 1:1 scale (armor museum at Pendleton)....easier to find parts after I drop them.....
@@rickmoreno6858 seriously, I drop pieces on a flat floor, disappeared. Gone. May go back to 1/35 armor and 1/32 aircraft. Then get a shed to put them in.......I sustained a hand injury decades ago. It's done ok, rode dirt bikes, etc. But it acts up on occasion. Doctor said model building would help dexterity(doc from England, remembered Airfix kits). I use that as an excuse to build.
What type of bee?, because bumblebees in 1938 didn't fly that high. They had a service ceiling of 200meters, maybe one of those more aggressive killer bees would go as high as 7000. Being the type that easily get very temperamental and seldom cares for their specifications 😁, perhaps Rex knows..
@@kittehgo The Mark II Bumblebee was an advanced version of the Mark I bumblebee. It had a new design low drag high mounted wing and supercharged engine. A greater lung capacity was also installed in later variants that made it possible to climb up to 33000ft. But the normal ceilinge of the Type 1933 MkII Bumblebee only seldom went that far. They were armed with a new more robust sting for low range self defence and had Zeiss optics for aiming. Also the bomb rack was exchanged for the newer and more robust Pollinator 3000. No comparison to the old Mark I Bumblebee you were referring to.
Reminds me of that massive russian one that looked like someone built a plane out of some old corrugated water tanks and put all the engines on it haha
@@Colt45hatchback Are you talking about the Kalinin K-7? That plane was purely made for propaganda purposes to show off the industrial capabilities of the USSR. It did that well.
IJAAS also tried the Fiat BR.20. Italian Axis Lend-Lease. They didn't like them much. Called the ''I-Type'' the Cicognas were replaced by Mitsubishi Ki-21 Sallys. McCoy Codename for IJAAS BR.20s was ''Ruth,'' even though they were obsolete by 12/41.
@@HootOwl513 😂 i hadnt heard the term dago since my dad passed away, thanks for reminding me, he didnt like them as apparently when he was a kid some italian soldier stole his bicycle, amusingly he didnt like americans as in post war occupation my grandfather was threatened by one as he wanted his hungarian aviators watch and my grandfather said no its mine, was a gift from my superior. (he did not get to keep his watch)
I am sorry to say this, but you are incorrect. These were not copies at all, they were a mix of 'inspiration and try it ourselves' and active co-development just like was occurring at Kawanishi, Kawasaki etc. Back in the 1920s, the Germans could not build or design military aircraft. The japanese understood this and employed a lot of Germans from their companies to design and build military aircraft offshore. There was a Japanese Navy factory in Denmark, for example. There was flow back the other way, too, Japanese update and modification to BMW VI (BMW VII and BMW IX) water-cooled V-12 aircraft engine first built in Germany in the 1920s. Japan built it as the Kawasaki Ha-9, but their mods got a hell of a lot more HP out of it: BMW was present at the Kawasaki plant and they fed these mods back to BMW who updated their engine etc. A heck of a lot of Heinkel, Dornier and Junkers engineers and designers rotated through Japanese factories and the giant aircraft factories built by Mitsubishi etc in the very late 30s were mildly updated designs and layouts of the big new heinkel plants. This entire subject is very, very poorly researched. Much of the Japanese record has been lost. What we can say is that Japanese-German aviation cooperation was much deeper than we thought before and went on for a very long time. Regards
Great comment and example! Sadly a lot of people still cling to the invalid and disproven reports full to the brim with "these are copied from western tech" that were heavily influenced by the prevent racism at the time.
Next April Fools do a video on all the aircraft of Crimson Skies. The old Xbox video game. Lol (on a side note I want a full HD version of the game and sequel. Hahahaha.) Great video on a obscure jappo aircraft
@@mbryson2899 FASA? So crimson skies the video game I play set in a alternate universe where the USA collapse. Sky pirates with trick out zeppelin was a table top game? That is cool!
@@mbryson2899 that is awesome. I didn't know that so thank you I am going to check that out because I love the world the game was set in. And even had some head canon for a character and his gang. Lol I wonder if there are any stl for the miniatures for 3D printers?
Marvellous, i like how in such a short space of time they went from modifying an overseas design that looked like a 6 year old designed it in wood work class, to looking like what one thinks of when the term 1930's twin engine plane is mentioned. Also, was the asahi owned plane the one that broke the record for flying from japan to england? Or was that a later achievment in a different craft?
That was the Ki-15 Karigane which set a Japanese record (but that was predictable) and arrived in time for the coronation of George VI. Still, a pretty impressive archievement in 1937, even when compared to the three DH.88s & the DC-2 Uiver's results in the London-Melbourne race of 1934.
The metric was fun to follow. Trying to mentally convert this whole video to feet and knots. I’m curious how the pilots coped at 23ooo feet in an unpressurised vessel?
It's quite remarkable to me that this AC type was built between the wars by Mitsubishi, the same company that built the car my wife drives today in the 2000's.
Soviets supplied raw materials by train to their friend Germany even up to the day they were invaded despite ample warnings. If your leaders make laws to prevent companies making and exporting you’re stunting their growth.
Prior to WW2, ~1938 a general (ish) in the Luftwaffe was being entertained by a British civil serpent (sorry servant) from the War Office at the annual Farnborough airshow. On display was one of the new Hurricanes equipped with the (then secret) reflector gunsight. The War Office plebe insisted the gunsight be explained and demonstrated to his German 'friend'. At the time it was obvious to everyone (except the War Office) that a war with Germany was looming (hence the Hurricane). Post WW2 the government of Clement Atlee gifted to the Soviet Union several examples of the brand new Rolls Royce Nene turbojet; at the time the most powerful and sophisticated jet engine in existence. After all the USSR was a friendly, peaceful nation that wanted them for commercial purposes. The same Nene, then copied and placed in the MIG 15, became a very nasty shock for Allied air forces during the Korean war.
The early advancement in aircraft technology was like throwing money in a bottomless pit but _everyone_ had to do it and exceedingly brave steely eyed _men_ had to fly them the first time. Hanna and the WAAFs no disrespect meant!
I find it astonishing that not one nation, developing any aircraft, EVER considered putting a canopy around pilots until aircraft started reaching high altitude. Pilot eye injuries, deafness, et al ailments never seemed to get through to aircraft designers!
Might be an idea as a one off if you like to scratch build. I think that one of those showing up at a model meet would blow the doors off the kits. Right off the bat, no one would have a clue what it was.
That KI-1, final version looks cool as heck. Also ildly pondering, the plane with S-AABL designation is certainly Swedish, but there's a small Finnish flag on the tail. I wonder if it flew a route between Sweden and Finland...
On the Ki-1 (2:47), the letters before the number 1 spell out Aikoku, literally “love country”, or less literally “patriot” or “patriotic”. Tells you something about the nationalism at the time 😂
The Ki-1 been built in 1930s and not even considered a good plane, could you imagine trying to stop it from bombing your city today almost 100 years later? If it wasn’t for your country‘s military you wouldn’t have a chance in hell stopping that old antique
Just as "Ki" in Japanese Army designations is a syllable and not the letters K and I, the "Ha" in Japanese Army engine nomenclature is a syllable pronounced "Ha", being the first character of the word Hatsudoki which means "motor" using the katakana script.
Ki 2 model 2 creews: wow I whish we would have had this plane in 1934, really shows how much new tech we have now. Designers of Ki 2 model 2: well we had all of that in 1934 but the army did not want it that way. Crews: wait what?
As long as we’re talking copycat Japanese aircraft .. I’m going out on a limb and theorize that the Zero … although not a copy of .. took a lot of cues from the Hughs H-1 , Speed .. Range .. tightly cowled air cooled engine.. widely spaced landing gear and essentially ended up with a plane that looked very similar as well as sharing many of the H-1’s outstanding characteristics..
No i dont think so, race planes are built for speed, not for turning or economy, i feel hughes said that as the zero was good and wanted to big note himself
@Colby Uetake ... yup. in seriousness, everybody with the slightest aeronautical engineering knew by the mid-1920s that they wanted low drag and reliable engines, so a radial with a tight cowling was obvious.
Also, landing gear placement - by around 1932, everybody knew retractable landing gear were becoming necessary for fighters; there are only a few places to put them. Try this: draw all the options for landing gear locations; I come up with 5 options, plus minor variations: 1. wing-mount, retracting inward (Zero, H1, Polikarpov I-16) 2. wing-mount, retracting rearward (P-35, P-36) 3. fuselage-mount, retracting outward (Me109, Spitfire) 4. fuselage-mount, retracting straight in (FF-1 thru F4F, PBY) 5. fuselage-mount, retracting backward (none from 1930s come to mind) Then think through pros and cons for each: hydraulic & electric needs, effect on center of gravity and flaps (also new-ish in 1930), wing complexity and placement of guns and fuel tanks, weight and complexity of the retraction mechanism. I am an engineer this analysis would take me an hour, but I have the benefit of knowing what ultimately worked, and more-or-less why. 1920s and 1930s engineers in Japan were able to do this too though they would have to spend a little more time designing the alternatives to see how the pros and cons play out. Jiro Horikoshi sure as shit did not need a lot of hand-holding help from Howard Hughes, Kurt Tank, Billy Mitchell, Willy Messerschmitt, Don Berlin, or Reginald Mitchell ... if you don't know all those names, you are in for a treat! That said, they surely were not too stupid to look around, see what was working for others. The biggest single reason for going wing-mount, inward retracting is for stability in landing and ground handling. Everybody knew narrow track aircraft were tippy because that's almost exclusively what had been flying since 1903. If you want simple, wide, retractable landing gear, then as now, you really only have one choice.
@@benhodge9676 Really well said! As someone that research how weapons systems developed it is really sad to see people disregarding stuff designed by non-Western (or more often than not, non-American) as "a copy" or "taking cues from". Especially those who read/believe reports that were created with heavy dose of racism despite the fact that those reports have been disproven.
Awesome job as usual. Im glad you didnt make any political comments about the japanese at the time, and stay with the aircraft and its story. Political lecturing in a technical video is off topic, a mistake other aircraft channels make. ( ie: flightless dodo)
![A Revolutionary Carrier Fighter | Mitsubishi A5M "Claude" [Aircraft Overview #41]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/iDHEl-s2MNU/mqdefault.jpg)
![A Revolutionary Carrier Fighter | Mitsubishi A5M "Claude" [Aircraft Overview #41]](/img/tr.png)
![The Forgotten First Grumman | Grumman FF 'Fifi' [Aircraft Overview #60]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7JpsatWGeLE/mqdefault.jpg)
Pinned comment disappeared, here is a new one.
F.A.Q Section
Q: Do you take aircraft requests?
A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:)
Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others?
A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both.
Q: Will you include video footage in your videos, or just photos?
A: Video footage is very expensive to licence, if I can find footage in the public domain I will try to use it, but a lot of it is hoarded by licencing studies (British Pathe, Periscope films etc). In the future I may be able to afford clips :)
Q: Why do you sometimes feature images/screenshots from flight simulators?
A: Sometimes there are not a lot of photos available for certain aircraft, so I substitute this with digital images that are as accurate as possible.
Feel free to leave you questions below - I may not be able to answer all of them, but I will keep my eyes open :)
I really appreciate your videos and am amazed that you can produce so many quality episodes
great FAQ, thx for the top quality content
My friend in all of youtube l have my three go to first channel's #1 is Mark Feldon #2 is your channel #3 is Ed Nash...All of these being on your side of the pond....l thank you very much....Shoe🇺🇸
Can you do the Italian cr 32, and tge italian float plane fighter/recon plane for the Regia marina!
My suggestion would be German nightfighters, such as Ju-88 C and G Variants - It's kinda weird to me how essentially the same plane design makes for a bomber at daytime and a fighter at night (although that was the case with british planes too) - or the purpose bulit He-219
What I got from watching Rex's videos is just how much this era of aviation was wild. Planes would be criticised on proposal for being too advanced, with too many untested features, have a rocky development ironing out said issues and then after finally entering service... They were already hopelessly obsolete.
I would think that people who fly tend to be either solidly conservative when it comes to design changes or wild dreamers. The technology was changing almost on a daily basis. George sees something, thinks, "Bah, that's pretty inefficient/clunky/heavy, I can do bettter, piece o cake" etc and goes home, doodles a new idea and whomps it up in his garage and hangs it on HIS plane. Charlie sees Georges new Idea and the cycle repeats. The guys with the bucks aren't too sure, so let it ride til Charlie and George have proven it to work, then hem and haw about it some more. Sort of " if it ain't broke, don't fix it". It was a wide open field and they were running into new experiences all the time. And new dangers like control reversal. Tuck under. Whirl mode. Stresses never even considered. Going from wood to steel. Steel to aluminum. When I started flying fibre glass was used for cowlings and wheel spats. 10 years later I walked into a show at Pearson Airport in Toronto and my chin hit the floor and stayed there. A complete, airworthy sport plane made of fibre glas. How about one with the wings carved out of styrofoam blocks between two wood spars and covered over with thin plywood? Ken Rand's KR-1. How about a Volksplane? Powered by a VW engine. Oh, but that was old thinking. The Pietenpol used a Ford car engine in the 30s. Dig deep enough and you will be amazed by the ingenuity of flyers. Conservative as a rock on one hand, wildly bold and experimenting on the other.
“Better than nothing” is still a common saying in the military.
It was during a time of unknowns, where no one really knows how far plane designs can go, what the right doctrines were. The basic principles of aerodynamics becoming more and more clear as designs were placed in wind tunnels, so there was always potential to discover new theories, new laws, that you can design a new aircraft to exploit. That's why development look seemingly so fast because there was just so many low lying fruits to pick. When a field of science and engineering becomes more mature, designs start to converge and doctrines start to become established because you can't really run away from physics and logistics and that's when it seem development start to drop off.
@@gelinrefira Crazy isn't it? To think that a mere 20 years after this era we would see the B-52 enter service, the plane which is now slated to serve until the 2040s...
@@sabrekai8706 Being conservative while choosing your airplane parts seems like a reasonable idea. I'd rather have a new part fail in someone elses plane so the flaw can be fixed before I install it.
Considering Mitsubishi engineers were taught by Junkers directly, I think it's unfair to call it "copying" but rather they were following the same practices and similar techniques they were taught to use when designing an aircraft.
@@MidwestFarmToys They've passed the baton to China now
@@MidwestFarmToys ...and the Germans too...
@@MidwestFarmToys they copied them in the 20s and Early 30s, But were taught by germans later and started to design their own aircraft.
@@MidwestFarmToys That "famous for" is something came from racism.
A lot of stuff made during the Inter-War to WW2 even got waved away as "impossible" by westerner because they were made by the Japanese despite the fact example existed.
If Japan is "famous for copying" then the US and other countries should be even more famous for copying, a lot of German and Japanese tech got copied in various ways to develop post war systems. German Jets aspects for further jet development, I-400s sub for further sub development, I can go on....
@@MidwestFarmToys You do understand there is a difference between copying and producing foreign designs under licence right? And that many "copied" Japanese designs were simply projects they contracted out to European designers when they didn't have the time or money to make a design entirely on their own.
Still find it amazing how fast aviation progressed at that time. Things brand new in the early 30s were obsolete by the end of the decade.
look at the very first aircraft in WW1 in 1914 vs at the end in 1918. Then look at the planes of WW2. Then consider the aircraft developed in the 10-20yrs after WW2 such as the C-130, U-2, F-104, F-100, B-52, F-8, F-86, F-106, A-4, A-12/SR-71, X-1, X-15, English Electric Lightning, Boeing 707, and many many more. Largely by 1962 we had achieved a level of understanding and design that continues to this day. Everything since then has been incremental.
Between 1914 and 1969 humans took aviation from barely flyable to the extreme. we're making progress once again, but very little of it is truly revolutionary that wasn't already figured out for the most part by the 1960s.
Observe the radical expansion of computer tech in the 1980s through early 2000s. Asymptotic rise in capability during the early years in a new tech paradigm is a pretty well established trend.
In WW1 a top line scout in March was just flying Fokker fodder in October…
Less end, more middle
@@kommandantgalileo in 1937, aviation was a mere 35 years old. In 1980, electronic computers were... 35 years old.
The drag from those landing lights makes my brain itch.
I was elated to be called out in the last video with the Walrus mention. I might also mention my favourite twin engined floatplane is the Grumman Goose. Just look at it. It looks like a toy. Brilliant.
The Goose was a nice little ship. Ever watch Tales of the Golden Monkey? But my two favorites are the Dornier Wal, and the PBY. Those two opened up air routes all over the world. The age of the seaplane will be forever engraved in my mind as the golden age of passenger flight too, just watch Indiana Jones and the Lost Ark. The scene of him hopping onto a Clipper and flying half way across the world, hitting stops in places you only dreamed of. Now it's spam in a can, 30 inches between you and the smelly goof in front of you who insists on putting his seat back in your lap.
One thing I've wondered about aircraft like type, with large open cockpits: Didn't rain and snow, in the long term, harm the equipment in the cockpits, beyond being uncomfortable for the crews?
Not as much as one might think. The instrument panel and other controls are typically forward of the pilot’s seat or protected under the fuselage. If the space was available on base they’d hangar the planes in rain. if it wasn’t available, the ground crew would hopefully put a tarp over the cockpit. Some of these planes came with leather covers for the cockpit. I used to work ground crew at an airport. One of our tenants had a PT-17 stearman and I asked him, he laughed and explained it to me.
Not all that much equipment in those days! lol Vacuum gauges for instruments...sheltered under the "break" of the cockpit...
The trick is to get above the weather.
@@trooperdgb9722 steam gauges, a.k.a round dials. Real pilot spotted, +15 internet points.
@@trooperdgb9722 Vacuum gauges were five years in the future when the Ki-1 flew. Instruments would have been a tachometer for each engine, oil pressure and temperature, altimeter and airspeed…
Rex.... Question, it's a big one and I'm sure a giant amount of work. Would you be interested in doing a research video on the A6 Intruder? It's a big ask I know.
Sooo. the old disused corrugated iron outdoor dunny we had in Kalgoorlie was actually a Ki 1.
That makes a lot of sense actually; it flew better than the indoor toilet.
PffAHAHAHAHAHA!! Oh lordie, that made me bust a gut! Thank you for the laugh 😂
I’d love to see a video on all the variations of the p-40 or the experimental p-40’s.
Actually I think it was classified advertising. Eat at Tojo' Sushi House. 😃 No idea, I have enough problems trying to understand Russian.
Curtiss managed to keep the P 40 in production until late in the war.
@@jollyjohnthepirate3168 Lend Lease.
@@jollyjohnthepirate3168 one of the reasons harry truman never liked curtiss and had it in for them after he was president.
It amazes me as to where you find the information and photographs for the fascinating aircraft in your videos !
Never heard of these before this. Interesting looking aircraft. Thanks for taking the time to educate us a bit.
Aviation advanced at a truly blinding speed. December of 1903, the first heavier than air flight. 1918, the first all metal mono plane. 1930s, trans Atlantic and Trans Pacific flights. 1944, First operational jet fighter. 1947, Mach 1. 1953, Mach 2, 1956 Mach 3. 1903, 1 pilot. 1908, pilot and 1 pax. It goes on from there with amazing advances every couple of years. Not surprising that Mitsubishi went from a clunker like the Ki-1 to the Ki-21 in such a short time. And lets not forget the Mitsubishi Nell, another very successful aircraft.
Amazing isn't it? 1903's hop to 1969's Moon walk (neckbeards be damned).
Yes the g3m and a5m were well ahead of the game when they entered service, especially compared to their predecessors, lovely planes.
Trans Atlantic actually happened already in 1919. Not that that makes it any less impressive. :)
@@LarS1963 True, but the really reliable passenger services didn't start until later. Two guys in a Vimy had balls of steel but as a commercial venture it had a while to go yet.
I was reading Robin Neilland's book on the WWII bomber offensive against Germany; he remarks that Hap Arnold was taught to fly at the Wright brothers' school in 1911, and ended WWII with four engined B 29s under his command. I think there may be equivalents in other nations too, who started in stick and string pioneer aircraft, and who saw operational jet aircraft in the span of their own career?
Japanese Industry: So you want us to build a "heavy bomber ?
IJA: Yes of course !
Japanese Industry: And by Heavy bomber you mean a Light Bomber in any other country ?
IJA: Yes of course !
Side note: You can catch a glimpse of a Ki-1 being assembled in the background at Mitsubishi in the animated feature film The Wind Rises by Hayao Miyazaki's Studio Ghibli.
Interesting registration on the Swedish built Junkers K-37: S-AABL. Hmmm, where have I seen those first four letters in Sweden?
Wikipedia is not showing me an actual connection, however.
Gott be the worlds best coincidence hey?
Incredible to think 10 yrs later you had Lancaster bombers and 10 yrs after that you had Vulcans victors and valiants
Sadly, we only advanced that fast because we had to one up each other in terms of ways to blow each other up. Aviation advancment seems pretty slow right now because we dont have a cold war or a world war
The 20's to the mid 30's is considered to be the golden age of aircraft design with engine development and streamlining making huge leaps. Cutting edge became obsolete in just a few years.
Diesel punk inspiration?
Lol, I just had a Mitsubishi commercial pop up
The Japanese writing on those early bombers says 'aikoku', love of country.
Great videos. Your research is very thorough
My favorite Era in aviation ...great vid ! Keep them coming ...
All interwar tanks, planes, ships, etc are very interesting and cool looking. Especially since I build, 1/35 armor, and 1/48 planes, Anyways thanks for these videos!
1/72 is the one true scale!!! Actually, I think 1/48 is a great intermediate state, not too big, not too small. If I get any fumblier I may just start fiddling with 1:1 scale (armor museum at Pendleton)....easier to find parts after I drop them.....
@@richsmith7200 ha no doubt
@@rickmoreno6858 seriously, I drop pieces on a flat floor, disappeared. Gone. May go back to 1/35 armor and 1/32 aircraft. Then get a shed to put them in.......I sustained a hand injury decades ago. It's done ok, rode dirt bikes, etc. But it acts up on occasion. Doctor said model building would help dexterity(doc from England, remembered Airfix kits). I use that as an excuse to build.
I played with the Ki2 in IL2 1946, quite the fun
Another very interesting piece of aviation history. Thanks a lot.
Imagine flying over a 200 km/hr at 7,000 meters and getting smacked in the face by a Bumblebee. After the frostbite face wears off of course.
What type of bee?, because bumblebees in 1938 didn't fly that high. They had a service ceiling of 200meters, maybe one of those more aggressive killer bees would go as high as 7000. Being the type that easily get very temperamental and seldom cares for their specifications 😁, perhaps Rex knows..
I was thinking about the spacious nose. You could fit 6 Japanese bomb aimers in there.
@@kittehgo The Mark II Bumblebee was an advanced version of the Mark I bumblebee. It had a new design low drag high mounted wing and supercharged engine. A greater lung capacity was also installed in later variants that made it possible to climb up to 33000ft. But the normal ceilinge of the Type 1933 MkII Bumblebee only seldom went that far.
They were armed with a new more robust sting for low range self defence and had Zeiss optics for aiming. Also the bomb rack was exchanged for the newer and more robust Pollinator 3000. No comparison to the old Mark I Bumblebee you were referring to.
P-47 Thunderbee......
Thank you Rex great job Sir
Great video. This is one plane I have not seen before. Good find.
This is awesome to learn about. Great vid Rex!
Don’t forget the Japanese also built G 38s under licence.
@13:01 man that nose looks it has enough room for a ballroom dance floor and a full bar downstairs
Those Ki's, especially the Ki-1, were some of the most Art Deco - looking planes I've ever seen.
Reminds me of that massive russian one that looked like someone built a plane out of some old corrugated water tanks and put all the engines on it haha
@@Colt45hatchback Exactly! It's like, "Hey Boris! Let us attach wings to farm grain storage vessels and put engines on and see if it'll fly."
@@sski puts two engines on..hmm wont even taxi... How many more engines do we have? 8? Marvellous, lets put them on, all 8? Yesss
@@Colt45hatchback LOL! "DA!"
@@Colt45hatchback Are you talking about the Kalinin K-7? That plane was purely made for propaganda purposes to show off the industrial capabilities of the USSR. It did that well.
At 14:00, that would be a picture of the Dalek variant of the nose turret.
Does it shout “Exterminate!” as it fires?
🤔
IJAAS also tried the Fiat BR.20. Italian Axis Lend-Lease. They didn't like them much. Called the ''I-Type'' the Cicognas were replaced by Mitsubishi Ki-21 Sallys. McCoy Codename for IJAAS BR.20s was ''Ruth,'' even though they were obsolete by 12/41.
Bombers for soy beans deal.
@@unbearableunbearable2740 Because Italians crave Tofu. Can't make Tiramisu without it.
The japanese crews called them the clumsy firetrap if i recall correctly
@@Colt45hatchback They died like Samurai, composing their Death Haiku:
Clumsy Dago firetrap/
Itai! I fall flaming/
In this clumsy Eye-tie kite
@@HootOwl513 😂 i hadnt heard the term dago since my dad passed away, thanks for reminding me, he didnt like them as apparently when he was a kid some italian soldier stole his bicycle, amusingly he didnt like americans as in post war occupation my grandfather was threatened by one as he wanted his hungarian aviators watch and my grandfather said no its mine, was a gift from my superior. (he did not get to keep his watch)
I am sorry to say this, but you are incorrect. These were not copies at all, they were a mix of 'inspiration and try it ourselves' and active co-development just like was occurring at Kawanishi, Kawasaki etc. Back in the 1920s, the Germans could not build or design military aircraft. The japanese understood this and employed a lot of Germans from their companies to design and build military aircraft offshore. There was a Japanese Navy factory in Denmark, for example. There was flow back the other way, too, Japanese update and modification to BMW VI (BMW VII and BMW IX) water-cooled V-12 aircraft engine first built in Germany in the 1920s. Japan built it as the Kawasaki Ha-9, but their mods got a hell of a lot more HP out of it: BMW was present at the Kawasaki plant and they fed these mods back to BMW who updated their engine etc. A heck of a lot of Heinkel, Dornier and Junkers engineers and designers rotated through Japanese factories and the giant aircraft factories built by Mitsubishi etc in the very late 30s were mildly updated designs and layouts of the big new heinkel plants.
This entire subject is very, very poorly researched. Much of the Japanese record has been lost. What we can say is that Japanese-German aviation cooperation was much deeper than we thought before and went on for a very long time.
Regards
Great comment and example! Sadly a lot of people still cling to the invalid and disproven reports full to the brim with "these are copied from western tech" that were heavily influenced by the prevent racism at the time.
Next April Fools do a video on all the aircraft of Crimson Skies. The old Xbox video game. Lol (on a side note I want a full HD version of the game and sequel. Hahahaha.) Great video on a obscure jappo aircraft
Xbox? It was FASA, man!
@@mbryson2899 FASA? So crimson skies the video game I play set in a alternate universe where the USA collapse. Sky pirates with trick out zeppelin was a table top game? That is cool!
@@warhawk4494 Yep. It was originally a tabletop game published by FASA, they wrote the history for it. Ral Partha made miniatures for it, too.
@@warhawk4494 FASA also invented BattleTech and Shadowrun, the computer games are based on their work.
@@mbryson2899 that is awesome. I didn't know that so thank you I am going to check that out because I love the world the game was set in. And even had some head canon for a character and his gang. Lol I wonder if there are any stl for the miniatures for 3D printers?
Crazy looking but it would make a nice model to build !
Ed when are you going to cover the Blackburn Firebrand? I’ve only been requesting it for about 18 months 😁 guess I can wait a little longer.
Haha I silently wished to myself he would do the OS2U and he did it!
I love the content of this channel/series. That is all.
Good show Rex!
Marvellous, i like how in such a short space of time they went from modifying an overseas design that looked like a 6 year old designed it in wood work class, to looking like what one thinks of when the term 1930's twin engine plane is mentioned. Also, was the asahi owned plane the one that broke the record for flying from japan to england? Or was that a later achievment in a different craft?
That was the Ki-15 Karigane which set a Japanese record (but that was predictable) and arrived in time for the coronation of George VI.
Still, a pretty impressive archievement in 1937, even when compared to the three DH.88s & the DC-2 Uiver's results in the London-Melbourne race of 1934.
Thanks for another interesting video
The was looking at the Ki-1 and I realised that out there somewhere was a farmer wondering where the wheels from his tractor had gone.
love this channel
The metric was fun to follow. Trying to mentally convert this whole video to feet and knots. I’m curious how the pilots coped at 23ooo feet in an unpressurised vessel?
Excellent video
Can you make a Video about the Mitsubishi Ki-109 in the Future?
It's quite remarkable to me that this AC type was built between the wars by Mitsubishi, the same company that built the car my wife drives today in the 2000's.
Love your videos
"Screaming tube!" LOL! That's great!
Most enjoyable!!
Ii enjoy your work Rex
Thank you again .
I'd be fascinated to see how in-depth you go when the time comes to do the McDonnell Douglas F-4.
The F-4 Phantom II is a super well known aircraft. Like… there’s some still in service with some nations if I remember correctly
I am always amazed that British aviation engine companies in the 1930s actually supplied engines to future Axis countries for prototype aircraft.
Why shouldn't they? Japan was an Allied nation in WW1 (the "last war") after all. Should they have had a crystal ball?
Soviets supplied raw materials by train to their friend Germany even up to the day they were invaded despite ample warnings. If your leaders make laws to prevent companies making and exporting you’re stunting their growth.
Prior to WW2, ~1938 a general (ish) in the Luftwaffe was being entertained by a British civil serpent (sorry servant) from the War Office at the annual Farnborough airshow. On display was one of the new Hurricanes equipped with the (then secret) reflector gunsight. The War Office plebe insisted the gunsight be explained and demonstrated to his German 'friend'. At the time it was obvious to everyone (except the War Office) that a war with Germany was looming (hence the Hurricane). Post WW2 the government of Clement Atlee gifted to the Soviet Union several examples of the brand new Rolls Royce Nene turbojet; at the time the most powerful and sophisticated jet engine in existence. After all the USSR was a friendly, peaceful nation that wanted them for commercial purposes. The same Nene, then copied and placed in the MIG 15, became a very nasty shock for Allied air forces during the Korean war.
You're doing a great job! How about a program dealing with the Junkers 52?
Thanks!
This is referenced in the Studio Ghibli film "The Wind Rises" about Jiro Horikoshi, who went on to design the Zero fighter.
nice video
Quite like the chunky streamlined look of the K-1.
The early advancement in aircraft technology was like throwing money in a bottomless pit but _everyone_ had to do it and exceedingly brave steely eyed _men_ had to fly them the first time.
Hanna and the WAAFs no disrespect meant!
Well said. Aviation was the Wild west in 3 dimensions.
MAKE A VIDEO ON KI 20!!!! love ur vids
I find it astonishing that not one nation, developing any aircraft, EVER considered putting a canopy around pilots until aircraft started reaching high altitude. Pilot eye injuries, deafness, et al ailments never seemed to get through to aircraft designers!
Fail or not those planes will make a good and interesting scale model
Might be an idea as a one off if you like to scratch build. I think that one of those showing up at a model meet would blow the doors off the kits. Right off the bat, no one would have a clue what it was.
00:41 This is going to be good. That's Keystone Cops right there! or....Ki-stone, if you wish.
*subscribed*
Great channel!
Man, in a couple photos that thing looks like it has legit tractor tires fitted.
we never hear much about early japanese designs i suppose they were often foreign designs but certainly not all
That KI-1, final version looks cool as heck. Also ildly pondering, the plane with S-AABL designation is certainly Swedish, but there's a small Finnish flag on the tail. I wonder if it flew a route between Sweden and Finland...
Early black and white film can lie to you about colours. Yellow can show up darker than blue.
That thing must have the aerodynamics of a cinderblock.
Did either aircraft get an Allied code nsme?
Doesn't seem they would have been useful enough to be used for anything remotely tied to military in 1941.
I can't imagine being in an open cockpit at 20,000 feet.
Fur lined flight suit. Face mask. Of course walking to the aircraft and the first 10000 feet was like being in an oven.
@@sabrekai8706 I was thinking you'd also have to be on oxygen. It sure wouldn't be fun.
@@oldesertguy9616 yeah, I suppose condensation from your breath freezing on your face would be annoying to say the least.
On the Ki-1 (2:47), the letters before the number 1 spell out Aikoku, literally “love country”, or less literally “patriot” or “patriotic”. Tells you something about the nationalism at the time 😂
I hope it's only me that imagines an 'obscene' four-letter word in the kanji written on the plane.
PhaQu ?
The Ki-1 been built in 1930s and not even considered a good plane, could you imagine trying to stop it from bombing your city today almost 100 years later? If it wasn’t for your country‘s military you wouldn’t have a chance in hell stopping that old antique
Almost cartoonishly huge tires on the landing gear.
Have always loved the Ki-1-II, looks like something used by the Galactic Empire, if only the engines were Ion Engines
A junker to be sure if fighters show up.
It seems to be somewhat lost in translation.
"Corrugated metal on the wings"... what, why would you put that there?!
It’s a Junkers specialty - if done right, increases strength and lower (yup!) drag! Apparently the small-scale turbulence creates a boundary layer …
Just as "Ki" in Japanese Army designations is a syllable and not the letters K and I, the "Ha" in Japanese Army engine nomenclature is a syllable pronounced "Ha", being the first character of the word Hatsudoki which means "motor" using the katakana script.
Ki 2 model 2 creews: wow I whish we would have had this plane in 1934, really shows how much new tech we have now.
Designers of Ki 2 model 2: well we had all of that in 1934 but the army did not want it that way.
Crews: wait what?
Should have been called the One-Key rather than the Key-One, perhaps?
Given its slow speed and lack of handling perhaps Don-Key may have been more apt?
Planes designer then: "what aerodynamics?"
Junkers or Jungkers 🤯
They should have developed the civilian model into a light Bomber. Thanks.
The Condor proved that’s not always a good idea.
So beastly ugly that they R beautiful, kinda like good pain.
Have always loved the greenhouse Sally/Ki-21.
Perfect aircraft for an ork remodel.
Mo Dakka Needed!!!ORKSORKSORKSORKSORKSORKSORKSORKSORKS
As long as we’re talking copycat Japanese aircraft .. I’m going out on a limb and theorize that the Zero … although not a copy of .. took a lot of cues from the Hughs H-1 , Speed .. Range .. tightly cowled air cooled engine.. widely spaced landing gear and essentially ended up with a plane that looked very similar as well as sharing many of the H-1’s outstanding characteristics..
I'm sure the Zero is the ONLY plane to take "cues" from the H-1
No i dont think so, race planes are built for speed, not for turning or economy, i feel hughes said that as the zero was good and wanted to big note himself
@Colby Uetake ... yup. in seriousness, everybody with the slightest aeronautical engineering knew by the mid-1920s that they wanted low drag and reliable engines, so a radial with a tight cowling was obvious.
Also, landing gear placement - by around 1932, everybody knew retractable landing gear were becoming necessary for fighters; there are only a few places to put them. Try this: draw all the options for landing gear locations; I come up with 5 options, plus minor variations:
1. wing-mount, retracting inward (Zero, H1, Polikarpov I-16)
2. wing-mount, retracting rearward (P-35, P-36)
3. fuselage-mount, retracting outward (Me109, Spitfire)
4. fuselage-mount, retracting straight in (FF-1 thru F4F, PBY)
5. fuselage-mount, retracting backward (none from 1930s come to mind)
Then think through pros and cons for each: hydraulic & electric needs, effect on center of gravity and flaps (also new-ish in 1930), wing complexity and placement of guns and fuel tanks, weight and complexity of the retraction mechanism.
I am an engineer this analysis would take me an hour, but I have the benefit of knowing what ultimately worked, and more-or-less why. 1920s and 1930s engineers in Japan were able to do this too though they would have to spend a little more time designing the alternatives to see how the pros and cons play out. Jiro Horikoshi sure as shit did not need a lot of hand-holding help from Howard Hughes, Kurt Tank, Billy Mitchell, Willy Messerschmitt, Don Berlin, or Reginald Mitchell ... if you don't know all those names, you are in for a treat! That said, they surely were not too stupid to look around, see what was working for others.
The biggest single reason for going wing-mount, inward retracting is for stability in landing and ground handling. Everybody knew narrow track aircraft were tippy because that's almost exclusively what had been flying since 1903. If you want simple, wide, retractable landing gear, then as now, you really only have one choice.
@@benhodge9676 Really well said! As someone that research how weapons systems developed it is really sad to see people disregarding stuff designed by non-Western (or more often than not, non-American) as "a copy" or "taking cues from". Especially those who read/believe reports that were created with heavy dose of racism despite the fact that those reports have been disproven.
lol, screaming tube.
👍👍
In terms of appearance....They look just as ugly as late model Mitsubishi cars~
Great video, turkey planes~
Incredible how Japan 🇯🇵, a new nation had so many advanced technology companies.
Awesome job as usual. Im glad you didnt make any political comments about the japanese at the time, and stay with the aircraft and its story. Political lecturing in a technical video is off topic, a mistake other aircraft channels make. ( ie: flightless dodo)
Very interesting - btw aircraft altitude is normally given in feet, especially for those of us living in the anglosphere :o ;)
Yea nice try. Its 2022 you know...for us that use correct measurement.
@@wazza7575 Meh :P There are very few countries that use metric in aviation, weirdly. Russia is one.
Documentation of no self-esteem :)
:)
an
Really!? "Bomb Aimer"! How about Bombardier.