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 grandfather was the prop shop supervisor at Drew Field (now MacDill) in Florida during WW2. His favorite was the P-61. Any chance you could touch upon this amazing, purpose-built nightfighter?
The Douglas B-18 Bolo hasn't been covered often enough, despite being used by the USAAC before the war and the USAAF and RCAF (as the Digby) for anti-sub patrols during the war.
I think the Me-110 was a German aircraft following the same concept, but failed miserably as an escort fighter. However it was great in several other roles for example as a night fighter. Suppose the Airacuda had made it somehow into 1941, 1942 and later. Could it have been used for other puposes?
It helps when watching this to realize that the Lockheed entry in this competition was the legendary P-38 Lightning. While this beast was lumbering around the sky trying to kill its pilots, the Lockheed prototype broke the transcontinental speed record (please pay no attention to that tree they hit at the end).
The P38 killed a few test pilots and airmen I believe due to not being able to pull out of a dive due to no air over the elevator till they installed a spoiler.
@@chrisg2739 The phenomenon is called "compression lock." First to experience it was an Army pilot in 1941 who was able to regain control via elevator trim. Lockheed installed elevator servos on a test ship and a civilian pilot tried to reproduce the fault. He failed to come out of the dive and was killed. AIUI it took quite awhile for P-38s in theater to get their spoilers installed. Pilots were killed in some numbers as a result.
You neglected to mention the deathtrap these would have been for the gondola gunners (jumping out, straight into the props), which led to a modification whereas the props could be jettisoned. In theory.
This definitely seems like an example of “it seemed like a good idea at the time”. Being able to hunt bombers from outside the range of their own defenses would have been a game changer.
Even Germany struggled with this late in the war. On a technological level they kind of sort of succeeded with various attempts like a Bf 110 with a BK37 37mm autocannon cannon under the belly with 24 rounds, a Me 410 with a BK5 50mm cannon with 22 rounds in the weapons bay, the latter of which could seriously outrange B-17s defensive armament. There was also the Werfergranate 21, essentially a 21 cm Nebelwerfer rocket strapped to a plane, with 4 used on a Bf 110 or Me 410 or two on a Fw 190 or Bf 109, which were then distance fused and fired into the formation from about 800 meters. In technicality these could have been interesting concepts, along with the Me 262, which could be fitted with 12 or 24 R4M rockets (the idea being that they could effectively saturate an entire formation of B-17s and hit most of them at least once, even if fired from outside B-17s range), X-4 air-to-air guided missiles and whatnot. Problem was that most of these were just too late and Germany couldnt field planes in a sufficient number to do make a serious dent anymore anyway. But at least nothing they came up with was a categorical threat to the pilots or crew.
@@SudrianTales True, though the rocket tubes could be discarded after use, so the difference in performance would be only before firing. And twin engine fighters like the 110 and the 410 were heavier than single engine P-51s either way, so the extra weight from the BK 37 or BK5 didnt matter in the big picture. The Me 262 is the only plane where that doesnt apply since even with a payload of rockets or even a 50mm autocannon it could outrun a P-51 under equal conditions (not that specialized armament was needed, the basic 4 30mm MK108s were ample firepower against B-17s), though P-51s having an altitude advantage usually negated that significantly.
What's insane is that Bell eventually designed and built the first plane to break the sound barrier. They definitely didn't mind trying designs that were way out there. I always like the lines of the P-39 , very beautiful design.
And don't forget the Airacomet! Bell did lots of work on the fringes, adding to the fast-expanding knowledge base, and ended up dominating the rotor craft market for decades!
What a great series. Thanks. I first saw the Airacuda (and the XB-15 as well as the British turreted fighters) in a book from my elementary school library. The book was published just before WW2 and had beautiful B&W photos of period military aircraft, most of which were in aluminum finish.
Oh wow. I love that someone woke up one day and thought "hey, let's make a plane with 2 37mm cannons where the engines are in the back side of the wing". It just sounds extra outlandish considering the time it was made and I love it. I would say to imagine how it would've been if it worked but honestly it could've done it with one big gun and be lighter in more ways then one but there are several designers that *did* succeed in making a plane like this though maybe not for the same role
Pusher propellers in big engine nacelles/manned gondolas were popular in the 20s and 30s. Every single one I read about had problems with engine overheating - but designers loved the idea and kept refusing to learn from their mistakes. The end of the road for this was the B-36 with six piston engines - all overheating. The other 4 engines ran very hot, but they had to - they were jets.
I have loved Bell airplanes since I was a young boy. My dad used to pickup "Wings" magazine as well as "Air Power" in the early '70's and there were articles about all the fabulous WW-2 aircraft, but my favorites were the P-39 and P-63, and by association, the Airacuda. Great video! Thanks!
Great name wasted on a less then great aircraft. The photo at 7:24 caught my eye. I grew up in East Aurora, NY. Must have been an exciting day for them when the Airacuda arrived unexpectedly!
Hi Rex, yes I've drawn this aircraft as well, you'd need to install explosive bolts on the 'pusher' propellers prior to the crew bailing out otherwise these would have made mincemeat of them!
( 9:27 ) I swear that I have seen a picture somewhere of this experimental car with a nose wheel fitted for testing. It was around three decades ago so I can't say if the nose wheel test car was for this aeroplane, but my memory says it was for something similar. Great video on this very 1930's looking design Bell aircraft, thanks! 😊
From what I've read, the Airacuda represented the US Army Air Corps' attempt at getting the absolute most from its meager Depression-era budget for new technology development. Bell, even then, had a reputation for innovation and pushing the envelope when it came to new designs. So, the Army decided to throw everything it could into one aircraft program in the hopes that the effort would yield technologies useful in other programs. And if they were lucky the Airacuda program would itself produce a useful bird. There was considerable merit to this attempt. The lessons learned with the Airacuda did indeed get applied throughout the US airplane industry in the years that followed. The research on solving that nose gear wobble was one such example. Tricycle landing gear layouts were still somewhat new at that time with most aircraft being tail draggers. The choice of using electric motors was also an area of keen interest to the Air Corps. Electric motors offered the advantage of lighter weight systems as compared to hydraulic ones and not requiring the use of hydraulic fluid which was heavy and flammable. Had this system worked out it would've been a major advance in aircraft technology and given the US planes that used a considerable advantage. Those big 37mm canons were truly a massive firepower installation. At the time, 37mm canon were the standard heavy gun installation on the world's tanks. It would be like installing a 120mm canon in an aircraft of today. The things were considered that massive and devastating in that era. Just a few hits from those heavy canon would destroy even the largest of bomber aircraft in the world at that time. And here the Airacuda sported two of those massive canons. For its time, the late 1930s, this was stupendous amount of firepower for an aircraft. The US Army had high hopes for its 37mm canon design that had been modified for aircraft use. It was the heavy punch for the Airacobra and for the Army's super-fighters of its R40-C proposals. The idea for their use in the Airacobra was for the plane to prowl off America's coast - these being the days before radar - in search of those enemy bombers. Upon finding them the Airacuda would approach the plane's navigator would start using the gun sighting system that the Army had turned to the US Navy to help develop as the shots from those canon would be much more like a battleship's directing fire from its main batteries than the traditional aircraft armament and sights. It was a complex mechanical system that was itself a new technology the Army was trying to develop. The gunners in those nacelles were really there to service the 37mm canons, not aim them. Developing feed mechanisms for the massive 37mm shells was beyond the scope of the Airacuda's design so they used relatively small magazines and those required there being someone there aside them to keep changing out the empty magazines with loaded ones. A rather thankless job, all things considered. The Bell designers did at least provide a tunnel through the wing into which the gunners could squeeze themselves through in order to get back into the fuselage and exit the aircraft in an emergency. Thus sparing the risk of being turned into mincemeat by the propeller behind them in the nacelle. As an operational aircraft the Airacuda did not succeed. As a flying testbed for new technologies however, it fared much better.
…not 120mm but there are 105mm guns installed on planes, the AC130s have them! and the funny thing? the AC130s could be argued as spiritual successors to these as they might have been great close air support planes if they had been put into that role!
Allison Engines in a pusher configuration, if that doesn't have disaster written all over it I don't know what does. The Allisons had a wretched reliability record in the P-38 and their superchargers caused them to overheat and that is without the added problem of every engine that's ever been in a pusher configuration struggling with keeping them properly cooled.
Fantastic Channel, and many, many thanks for the decent subtitles for us non-native English-speakers. This is where the good channels stand out from the bad! 🙂
Rex, Love what you are doing here, I’m a fan. You mentioned the Allisons were supercharged. They were also turbocharged, the turbines being visible in your photographs. Like the P-38, the turbochargers fed pressurized air to the engine driven supercharger.
Maaaan... Your channel is such a treat for me :D Can nerd over 2 of my favourite subjects: airplanes and fine English with excellent story telling, plenty of sarcasm and such a sweet-sweet pronunciation. Keep them coming please!!! Cheers! I.
If throughout the 1930's and 1940's the Army Air Corp would have ONLY requested prototypes for ugly, unreliable and unimpressive aircraft, I think Bell would have won every single production contract.
Feb. 17, 2022---YT lead me down this rabbit hole and thanks for the video. Got to building models in '74 and some time after that, Air Classics did a magazine article on this plane. I remember there being a vaccuform kit of this in 1/72 scale, a long time ago. Hello Ebay and found that kit is being sold there, but also, there's a company called Valom who has one as a plastic kit.
3 kits actually, all of which are now (2024) not absent from the stores I know of. Valom 72015 (2006), Valom 72036 (2007) and Valom 72022 (2008). Most recent appears to have special or corrective resin cast parts and a bit fiddly photoetch.
I first read about this machine in an article in the long-ago-departed magazine Airpower. In fact, it was in their first issue in 1971. Anyway, this has always been one of my favorite designs, due to its Buck Rogers look. I'm a huge fan of the various designs that cropped up between the World Wars, whether aircraft, ships, moto vehicles, or whatever. Thanks for a fun video!
G'day, Apparently it was a haven for delusional Schizophrenics and alcoholic Manic Depressives in manic- phase, all on the payroll of a Board of Directors whose minds had been lost in the imaginary depths of a Dan Dare Comicbook. Just(ifiably ?) sayin', Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
Very nice minidocumentary on an oddball prototype. I highly enjoy seeing the ideas that did not succeed as they often have more interesting stories to tell. In other news first video of yours I have seen and now I go to sub and watch more.
The Bell Aircraft factory in Niagara Falls, New York still exists in various states of preservation. The original glazed observation tower atop the manufacturing hangar with its' original Bell signage remains adjacent to the Niagara Falls International airport. The old Niagara Falls airport terminal that is home to an Airspace museum shares the premesis.
I have an immense respect for the bravery of any aircrew who managed to survive the period of aircraft development which brought us "let's just put guns literally everywhere on the plane"... "but who's going to feed and fire them?"... "the gunners that we'll put literally everywhere on the plane".
This video answered basically all of the questions I had about this plane; What's the deal with the nose wheel? Where did the turbo-superchargers go? Just to name a few. Very cool video about a cool plane.
Bro, your my dad's and I's favorite TH-cam channel, we watch you every time we hang out. Gotta ask where do you get all your pictures of your subjects? I'm a model maker and am constantly trying to find reference pictures of unique aircraft.
In Bells defense, the "heavy fighter" concept was all the rage at that time, and they weren't alone in their failure. In fact, it was probably a blessing for the American aviation industry that they failed so clearly and quickly, prompting our planners to ditch the concept and follow more fruitful design paths. As opposed to, say, the Germans with their Me 110, an aircraft that consumed scarce resources and aircrew and contributed so little to their war effort.
Used during the day the Me 110 was dreadful, but as a night fighter it was dreaded by the allied bomber crews. Radar was so bulky back then that night fighters needed to be big twin engined beasts.
1:37 You call them supercharged engines, but both the drawings and photos that show the side of the engines seem to have a turbocharger visible. (The round turbine part, connected by a pipe leading back towards what is presumably the exhaust manifold. There's also no visible exhaust stacks, which further leads me to believe it's piped to a turbo.) Confusingly, the documentation of the time referred to what we would today call "turbochargers" as "turbo-superchargers." Did you see any original documents that used the latter term? (Edit: not to mention, bell aircraft also had a huge thing for turbos-and tricycle landing gear-in the early 30s. See the early development of the P-39 for reference.)
Looks great on paper, great sitting on the ground, its only flaw is - everything else. Perfect for the Elbonian Air Force! With that slow a speed I'm surprised any Y models were ordered at all.
I have been fascinated by the Airacuda design since I saw pictures of it in the 1950s. The guns in the engine nacelles were very interesting and catch your attention right away. I never knew it had been such a fiasco. Too bad an example doesn't survive today . Thanks
Before the war my Dad worked for Curtiss here in Buffalo, and after the war he worked for Bell. I believe they were getting more involved in helicopters. He didn't work there too long because he joined the NYSP. It better suited him, being a MP Captain in the European theater. The picture of the wreck in E. Aurora, now that was cool.
Was there ever a development of a B-17 pure gunship to escort bombers? I'm especially thinking that they could get in front of damaged planes and provide shielding fire. (I am aware of the famous ad hoc B-17 gunship recon plane in the Pacific with it's epic mission.Might be worth a revisit?)
7:20 I have a slight feeling that Bell recycled the rudder pedal design for the P-39 Airacobra. Now I'm wondering what else they just directly put into the design of the Airacobra.
Hilarious commentary. Loved it. A spiffy looking aircraft - as long as you didn't have to actually crew or maintain the damned thing. So spiffy looking that Wyandotte built a metal toy based on this airframe. I saw one get restored over on Chip Channel.
If memory serves, there is a frame of this along with a few other things in the Dayton, Ohio Air museum. Or, at least I swear there was when I went there in the 90s with my father. I don't remember its completeness but you could see the innards. It was in one of the hangars that you had to take a bus tour to go see and it was being rebuilt/refurbished and was roped off pretty well
11:16... A PERISCOPE? why not outer rear view mirrors adjustable by hand like in a car , i mean... I am very pleased you' e told me why so few pull props were used, which i always looked as ... dodgy , like a front wheel powered bike ( french "Solex 2 stroke 37.5 cc no shit) it feel uncredibly weird
I was wondering, why didn't they put forward-facing turrets on heavy fighters? That would certainly improve their ability to attack maneuverable targets, since it wouldn't be required to face in exact direction to hit said target. Not being constrained to a predictable attack path of a forward-facing guns fighter also helps. Besides, they put them on bombers and they worked quite allright, so why not on heavy fighters? If you mounted the fixed guns of a Beaufighter on a turret, surely that would be splendid for its combat performance. Well, lackluster projects like this, is why. People who bite more than they can chew poisoning the well.
Nice video! I thought that I had heard of almost American aircraft from this period but this is a new one to me! It looks like a really interesting in concept but in concept a disaster.
It's really interesting to see how aircraft were developed to meet somebody's idea of air combat within an overall strategic plan. It would also be interesting to see how these developmental dead-ends contributed to some other aircraft successes or implemention.
I personally think this thing is gorgeous, the engine nacelles with the gun emplacements are an inspired design, even if nit necessarily, y know, a good one.
It’s sad that companies rarely think outside the box anymore. Take 3 cars from 3 different manufacturers and they are all very very similar. It’s the same with aircraft designs now a days.
![This Fighter Was Carried Underneath A B-29 | McDonnell XF-85 'Goblin' [Aircraft Overview #37]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ecj_AKtqq6Q/mqdefault.jpg)
![Japan's Failed Copycat Bombers | Mitsubishi Ki-1 & Ki-2 [Aircraft Overview #61]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/46bBkc5dmjw/mqdefault.jpg)
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 grandfather was the prop shop supervisor at Drew Field (now MacDill) in Florida during WW2. His favorite was the P-61. Any chance you could touch upon this amazing, purpose-built nightfighter?
Thanks for the brain 🧠 food.Cheers. Btw, how's new joystick?
Boulton Paul Defiant - The turreted fighter. Tactics used etc
The Douglas B-18 Bolo hasn't been covered often enough, despite being used by the USAAC before the war and the USAAF and RCAF (as the Digby) for anti-sub patrols during the war.
I think the Me-110 was a German aircraft following the same concept, but failed miserably as an escort fighter. However it was great in several other roles for example as a night fighter. Suppose the Airacuda had made it somehow into 1941, 1942 and later. Could it have been used for other puposes?
It helps when watching this to realize that the Lockheed entry in this competition was the legendary P-38 Lightning. While this beast was lumbering around the sky trying to kill its pilots, the Lockheed prototype broke the transcontinental speed record (please pay no attention to that tree they hit at the end).
First thing I thought of when I heard “two Allison v-12s”
Did they survive the crash?
@@Commrade-DOGE i think the test pilot survived. But the 1st prototype was trashed. It did set the speed recorb.
The P38 killed a few test pilots and airmen I believe due to not being able to pull out of a dive due to no air over the elevator till they installed a spoiler.
@@chrisg2739 The phenomenon is called "compression lock." First to experience it was an Army pilot in 1941 who was able to regain control via elevator trim. Lockheed installed elevator servos on a test ship and a civilian pilot tried to reproduce the fault. He failed to come out of the dive and was killed.
AIUI it took quite awhile for P-38s in theater to get their spoilers installed. Pilots were killed in some numbers as a result.
You neglected to mention the deathtrap these would have been for the gondola gunners (jumping out, straight into the props), which led to a modification whereas the props could be jettisoned. In theory.
It hurts just thinking of it
I was wondering the same thing, but you beat me to it. I’d hate to be bailing out knowing what’s back there.
Yikes it just occurred to me while reading comments. That’s a terrible choice to make if you’re going down lol
key word "in theory"
@@JoshuaC923 Only for a second or so. Props make superb blenders.
This definitely seems like an example of “it seemed like a good idea at the time”. Being able to hunt bombers from outside the range of their own defenses would have been a game changer.
Even Germany struggled with this late in the war. On a technological level they kind of sort of succeeded with various attempts like a Bf 110 with a BK37 37mm autocannon cannon under the belly with 24 rounds, a Me 410 with a BK5 50mm cannon with 22 rounds in the weapons bay, the latter of which could seriously outrange B-17s defensive armament. There was also the Werfergranate 21, essentially a 21 cm Nebelwerfer rocket strapped to a plane, with 4 used on a Bf 110 or Me 410 or two on a Fw 190 or Bf 109, which were then distance fused and fired into the formation from about 800 meters.
In technicality these could have been interesting concepts, along with the Me 262, which could be fitted with 12 or 24 R4M rockets (the idea being that they could effectively saturate an entire formation of B-17s and hit most of them at least once, even if fired from outside B-17s range), X-4 air-to-air guided missiles and whatnot. Problem was that most of these were just too late and Germany couldnt field planes in a sufficient number to do make a serious dent anymore anyway.
But at least nothing they came up with was a categorical threat to the pilots or crew.
@@builder396 course the issue is escort fighters coming close as those attachments often made the plane too heavy
@@SudrianTales True, though the rocket tubes could be discarded after use, so the difference in performance would be only before firing. And twin engine fighters like the 110 and the 410 were heavier than single engine P-51s either way, so the extra weight from the BK 37 or BK5 didnt matter in the big picture.
The Me 262 is the only plane where that doesnt apply since even with a payload of rockets or even a 50mm autocannon it could outrun a P-51 under equal conditions (not that specialized armament was needed, the basic 4 30mm MK108s were ample firepower against B-17s), though P-51s having an altitude advantage usually negated that significantly.
@@builder396 One issue with the Me262 nothing could ever fix was, well, the USAAF and RAF were right over the airfields waiting.
@@SudrianTales Yeah, Germany was just too far gone at that point to do anything about anything anymore. Wasnt really the planes fault.
What's insane is that Bell eventually designed and built the first plane to break the sound barrier. They definitely didn't mind trying designs that were way out there. I always like the lines of the P-39 , very beautiful design.
No they did not , they recieved stolen design papers ,via u.s.a. govt.and u.k.govt from miles aircraft company in u.k.
And don't forget the Airacomet! Bell did lots of work on the fringes, adding to the fast-expanding knowledge base, and ended up dominating the rotor craft market for decades!
0:16 I am in love with the canopies !
What a great series. Thanks. I first saw the Airacuda (and the XB-15 as well as the British turreted fighters) in a book from my elementary school library. The book was published just before WW2 and had beautiful B&W photos of period military aircraft, most of which were in aluminum finish.
@0:40 Nice to see the beautiful Fokker G1
Oh wow. I love that someone woke up one day and thought "hey, let's make a plane with 2 37mm cannons where the engines are in the back side of the wing". It just sounds extra outlandish considering the time it was made and I love it.
I would say to imagine how it would've been if it worked but honestly it could've done it with one big gun and be lighter in more ways then one but there are several designers that *did* succeed in making a plane like this though maybe not for the same role
37 mm cannon... 35 mm is a camera LOL
@@shawnbeckmann1847 oh whoops thx for the correction
@@somerandomguy___ 😁👍
Pusher propellers in big engine nacelles/manned gondolas were popular in the 20s and 30s. Every single one I read about had problems with engine overheating - but designers loved the idea and kept refusing to learn from their mistakes. The end of the road for this was the B-36 with six piston engines - all overheating. The other 4 engines ran very hot, but they had to - they were jets.
Funnily enough, Bell did reduce the weight and use a single 37mm cannons in the P-39, which is at least a better looking design.
Nice piece of art deco design.
I have loved Bell airplanes since I was a young boy. My dad used to pickup "Wings" magazine as well as "Air Power" in the early '70's and there were articles about all the fabulous WW-2 aircraft, but my favorites were the P-39 and P-63, and by association, the Airacuda. Great video! Thanks!
So glad you covered this one! I've always been fascinated by the Airacuda
Great name wasted on a less then great aircraft. The photo at 7:24 caught my eye. I grew up in East Aurora, NY. Must have been an exciting day for them when the Airacuda arrived unexpectedly!
Possibly the coolest name for a plane.
Hi Rex, yes I've drawn this aircraft as well, you'd need to install explosive bolts on the 'pusher' propellers prior to the crew bailing out otherwise these would have made mincemeat of them!
What if a stray round hit the explosive bolt?
@@Commrade-DOGE it’s thin enough there that a well placed round has a decent chance of shearing off the prop even without the explosive bolt
B-17 Belly Gunner “I’ve got the worst job ever!”… Airacuda Wing Nacelle Gunner “Not so fast…”
get hot boxed nerd
At least the B-17 could take a massive beating
( 9:27 ) I swear that I have seen a picture somewhere of this experimental car with a nose wheel fitted for testing. It was around three decades ago so I can't say if the nose wheel test car was for this aeroplane, but my memory says it was for something similar.
Great video on this very 1930's looking design Bell aircraft, thanks!
😊
From what I've read, the Airacuda represented the US Army Air Corps' attempt at getting the absolute most from its meager Depression-era budget for new technology development. Bell, even then, had a reputation for innovation and pushing the envelope when it came to new designs. So, the Army decided to throw everything it could into one aircraft program in the hopes that the effort would yield technologies useful in other programs. And if they were lucky the Airacuda program would itself produce a useful bird.
There was considerable merit to this attempt. The lessons learned with the Airacuda did indeed get applied throughout the US airplane industry in the years that followed. The research on solving that nose gear wobble was one such example. Tricycle landing gear layouts were still somewhat new at that time with most aircraft being tail draggers. The choice of using electric motors was also an area of keen interest to the Air Corps.
Electric motors offered the advantage of lighter weight systems as compared to hydraulic ones and not requiring the use of hydraulic fluid which was heavy and flammable. Had this system worked out it would've been a major advance in aircraft technology and given the US planes that used a considerable advantage.
Those big 37mm canons were truly a massive firepower installation. At the time, 37mm canon were the standard heavy gun installation on the world's tanks. It would be like installing a 120mm canon in an aircraft of today. The things were considered that massive and devastating in that era. Just a few hits from those heavy canon would destroy even the largest of bomber aircraft in the world at that time. And here the Airacuda sported two of those massive canons. For its time, the late 1930s, this was stupendous amount of firepower for an aircraft. The US Army had high hopes for its 37mm canon design that had been modified for aircraft use. It was the heavy punch for the Airacobra and for the Army's super-fighters of its R40-C proposals.
The idea for their use in the Airacobra was for the plane to prowl off America's coast - these being the days before radar - in search of those enemy bombers. Upon finding them the Airacuda would approach the plane's navigator would start using the gun sighting system that the Army had turned to the US Navy to help develop as the shots from those canon would be much more like a battleship's directing fire from its main batteries than the traditional aircraft armament and sights. It was a complex mechanical system that was itself a new technology the Army was trying to develop.
The gunners in those nacelles were really there to service the 37mm canons, not aim them. Developing feed mechanisms for the massive 37mm shells was beyond the scope of the Airacuda's design so they used relatively small magazines and those required there being someone there aside them to keep changing out the empty magazines with loaded ones. A rather thankless job, all things considered. The Bell designers did at least provide a tunnel through the wing into which the gunners could squeeze themselves through in order to get back into the fuselage and exit the aircraft in an emergency. Thus sparing the risk of being turned into mincemeat by the propeller behind them in the nacelle.
As an operational aircraft the Airacuda did not succeed. As a flying testbed for new technologies however, it fared much better.
…not 120mm but there are 105mm guns installed on planes, the AC130s have them! and the funny thing? the AC130s could be argued as spiritual successors to these as they might have been great close air support planes if they had been put into that role!
Allison Engines in a pusher configuration, if that doesn't have disaster written all over it I don't know what does. The Allisons had a wretched reliability record in the P-38 and their superchargers caused them to overheat and that is without the added problem of every engine that's ever been in a pusher configuration struggling with keeping them properly cooled.
“Hot boxing the gunners” That made me actually LoL.
Fantastic Channel, and many, many thanks for the decent subtitles for us non-native English-speakers. This is where the good channels stand out from the bad! 🙂
Rex,
Love what you are doing here, I’m a fan.
You mentioned the Allisons were supercharged. They were also turbocharged, the turbines being visible in your photographs. Like the P-38, the turbochargers fed pressurized air to the engine driven supercharger.
Ball turret gunner:"Boy, it sure is scary hanging under a bomber."
Airacuda gunner:"Aaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!(gasp)aaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!"
Kinda wish we saw a few more prototypes with similar concepts
Maaaan... Your channel is such a treat for me :D
Can nerd over 2 of my favourite subjects: airplanes and fine English with excellent story telling, plenty of sarcasm and such a sweet-sweet pronunciation.
Keep them coming please!!!
Cheers!
I.
If throughout the 1930's and 1940's the Army Air Corp would have ONLY requested prototypes for ugly, unreliable and unimpressive aircraft, I think Bell would have won every single production contract.
Only if they wouldn’t buy from Blackburn. Or anything French…
Harsh. But fair.
Unreliable, perhaps. Ugly? I think this aircraft looked amazing.
The Airacobra was a very pretty aircraft.
@@DEP717 Yep; I thought it was a graceful looking plane.
I watched this video, I went to your site and, wow, what a lot of great content. Thumbs up and subscribed, thank you.
I love the insight into the thinking of what was going on back in the Thirties. Its too easy to look back and snicker at them from a safe distance.
Th Fokker G1 at 0:44 should have a video of it's own!
helemaal mee eens
what a fantastic video, and the clarity of photographs is very impressive...cheers from Florida, Paul
Glorious captions/subtitles. Totally subscribing.
0:49
man I love those early B17s, so sleek missing all the gun mounts
Love the G1 picture.
Feb. 17, 2022---YT lead me down this rabbit hole and thanks for the video. Got to building models in '74 and some time after that, Air Classics did a magazine article on this plane. I remember there being a vaccuform kit of this in 1/72 scale, a long time ago. Hello Ebay and found that kit is being sold there, but also, there's a company called Valom who has one as a plastic kit.
3 kits actually, all of which are now (2024) not absent from the stores I know of. Valom 72015 (2006), Valom 72036 (2007) and Valom 72022 (2008). Most recent appears to have special or corrective resin cast parts and a bit fiddly photoetch.
I first read about this machine in an article in the long-ago-departed magazine Airpower. In fact, it was in their first issue in 1971.
Anyway, this has always been one of my favorite designs, due to its Buck Rogers look. I'm a huge fan of the various designs that cropped up between the World Wars, whether aircraft, ships, moto vehicles, or whatever.
Thanks for a fun video!
Bell must have been a fun place to work in the 1930s.
G'day,
Apparently it was a haven for delusional Schizophrenics and alcoholic Manic Depressives in manic- phase, all on the payroll of a Board of Directors whose minds had been lost in the imaginary depths of a Dan Dare Comicbook.
Just(ifiably ?) sayin',
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
You are producing some really interesting, high quality, content thank you.
Very nice minidocumentary on an oddball prototype. I highly enjoy seeing the ideas that did not succeed as they often have more interesting stories to tell.
In other news first video of yours I have seen and now I go to sub and watch more.
The Bell Aircraft factory in Niagara Falls, New York still exists in various states of preservation. The original glazed observation tower atop the manufacturing hangar with its' original Bell signage remains adjacent to the Niagara Falls International airport. The old Niagara Falls airport terminal that is home to an Airspace museum shares the premesis.
Great vid Rex! The Airacuda certainly had an interesting design.
It’s fascinating to see this sort of design where it seems like every decision was the wrong one. Great video!
7:52 poor ground crew...
Really good video on a most unusual aircraft. Keep up the good work.
really enjoy your podcasts. Thanks for publishing.
Fascinating, l love these weird and sometimes dangerous aircraft stories 👍
It's like they were on the path to the P-38, but then figured out how to make it too big, too complex, too ugly.
Best of all the P-38 was originally concieved to carry the same 37 M4 autocanon.
Excellent stuff bro
I'm aviation fun, but after watching your channel I realized how much I don't know. Thanks!
I have an immense respect for the bravery of any aircrew who managed to survive the period of aircraft development which brought us "let's just put guns literally everywhere on the plane"... "but who's going to feed and fire them?"... "the gunners that we'll put literally everywhere on the plane".
I love the aircuda! So glad you made a video about it. Such a sleek modern interwar looking ship
This video answered basically all of the questions I had about this plane; What's the deal with the nose wheel? Where did the turbo-superchargers go? Just to name a few. Very cool video about a cool plane.
Excellent video as always. Thanks for putting these out.
Bro, your my dad's and I's favorite TH-cam channel, we watch you every time we hang out. Gotta ask where do you get all your pictures of your subjects? I'm a model maker and am constantly trying to find reference pictures of unique aircraft.
Great video! The p39 aircobra that you mentioned sounds interesting, if you want to make a video on it.
One of the coolest looking designs I’ve ever seen in military avionics.
Just imagine this coming out when it did, very futuristic...along with art deco, etc...The shape of things to come...
In Bells defense, the "heavy fighter" concept was all the rage at that time, and they weren't alone in their failure. In fact, it was probably a blessing for the American aviation industry that they failed so clearly and quickly, prompting our planners to ditch the concept and follow more fruitful design paths. As opposed to, say, the Germans with their Me 110, an aircraft that consumed scarce resources and aircrew and contributed so little to their war effort.
Used during the day the Me 110 was dreadful, but as a night fighter it was dreaded by the allied bomber crews. Radar was so bulky back then that night fighters needed to be big twin engined beasts.
Love the writing on this
1:37 You call them supercharged engines, but both the drawings and photos that show the side of the engines seem to have a turbocharger visible. (The round turbine part, connected by a pipe leading back towards what is presumably the exhaust manifold. There's also no visible exhaust stacks, which further leads me to believe it's piped to a turbo.)
Confusingly, the documentation of the time referred to what we would today call "turbochargers" as "turbo-superchargers." Did you see any original documents that used the latter term?
(Edit: not to mention, bell aircraft also had a huge thing for turbos-and tricycle landing gear-in the early 30s. See the early development of the P-39 for reference.)
The note that the the supercharger was separate from the engine in early models confirms it was a turbo supercharger.
Great video. Thank you!
Wow. A great video. I had NO idea that this plane existed or flew. Very unusual plane.
Looks great on paper, great sitting on the ground, its only flaw is - everything else. Perfect for the Elbonian Air Force!
With that slow a speed I'm surprised any Y models were ordered at all.
Excellent as usual, thank you .
Great stuff. Thank you sir.
I have been fascinated by the Airacuda design since I saw pictures of it in the 1950s. The guns in the engine nacelles were very interesting and catch your attention right away. I never knew it had been such a fiasco. Too bad an example doesn't survive today . Thanks
Well, you can't win 'em all!
Nice video.
Before the war my Dad worked for Curtiss here in Buffalo, and after the war he worked for Bell. I believe they were getting more involved in helicopters. He didn't work there too long because he joined the NYSP. It better suited him, being a MP Captain in the European theater. The picture of the wreck in E. Aurora, now that was cool.
Was there ever a development of a B-17 pure gunship to escort bombers? I'm especially thinking that they could get in front of damaged planes and provide shielding fire.
(I am aware of the famous ad hoc B-17 gunship recon plane in the Pacific with it's epic mission.Might be worth a revisit?)
Yes, it was called the YB-40.
@@DABrock-author Awesome...glad I asked!
Great work, keep it up!
I adore the Airacuda. It just looks so flippin cool.
7:20 I have a slight feeling that Bell recycled the rudder pedal design for the P-39 Airacobra. Now I'm wondering what else they just directly put into the design of the Airacobra.
Hilarious commentary. Loved it.
A spiffy looking aircraft - as long as you didn't have to actually crew or maintain the damned thing. So spiffy looking that Wyandotte built a metal toy based on this airframe. I saw one get restored over on Chip Channel.
Well done
"Hot boxing the gunners"
You get a sub for that Rex.
Love this channel.
always been one of my favs in the '1930s retro futuristic' category
Strange what few years can do---from this contraption to the Douglas A-26 Invader and the P-61 Back Widow.
Thank you for the video. I have not even known of this plane. I can see why.
Looks cool...
Engines : "No it's not !"
It looks like an aircraft rocket .ship from Flash Gordon to Mars
Very interesting... Thanks
Very enjoyable - ty
If memory serves, there is a frame of this along with a few other things in the Dayton, Ohio Air museum. Or, at least I swear there was when I went there in the 90s with my father. I don't remember its completeness but you could see the innards. It was in one of the hangars that you had to take a bus tour to go see and it was being rebuilt/refurbished and was roped off pretty well
i really wonder why put guns there if center is free of any propeller...
You may not be able to polish a turd, but at least you can make it shine
11:16... A PERISCOPE?
why not outer rear view mirrors adjustable by hand like in a car , i mean...
I am very pleased you' e told me why so few pull props were used, which i always looked as ... dodgy , like a front wheel powered bike ( french "Solex 2 stroke 37.5 cc no shit) it feel uncredibly weird
This seems so overengineered and I love it. Reminds me of the ARC 170 from Star Wars.
When I first saw a photograph of the Airacuda as a kid I pictured the rocket flame and smoke à la Buck Rogers coming from its tail.
Question, is there a difference with the letters X and Y being in prototype names? For example the XP-50 and YP-38
X = experimental
Y = pre-production/prototype
@@bop3752 ah ok thanks
I always thought they should have used this airplane in "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow"
Exactly…it looks like something out of an old Eagle* comic…
* home of Dan Dare
I was wondering, why didn't they put forward-facing turrets on heavy fighters? That would certainly improve their ability to attack maneuverable targets, since it wouldn't be required to face in exact direction to hit said target. Not being constrained to a predictable attack path of a forward-facing guns fighter also helps. Besides, they put them on bombers and they worked quite allright, so why not on heavy fighters? If you mounted the fixed guns of a Beaufighter on a turret, surely that would be splendid for its combat performance. Well, lackluster projects like this, is why. People who bite more than they can chew poisoning the well.
Nice video! I thought that I had heard of almost American aircraft from this period but this is a new one to me! It looks like a really interesting in concept but in concept a disaster.
It's really interesting to see how aircraft were developed to meet somebody's idea of air combat within an overall strategic plan. It would also be interesting to see how these developmental dead-ends contributed to some other aircraft successes or implemention.
I personally think this thing is gorgeous, the engine nacelles with the gun emplacements are an inspired design, even if nit necessarily, y know, a good one.
I tried to think of ways that jets would improve this design but just ended up with the A-10.
"Hot-boxing the gunners". Thanks for the chuckle.
It’s sad that companies rarely think outside the box anymore. Take 3 cars from 3 different manufacturers and they are all very very similar. It’s the same with aircraft designs now a days.
Pretty neat.
Thank you I have never heard of that death ☠️💀 trap of a flying machine...it was very informative...thank you again....
I don't know why I love heavy fighters. But I do. And this one is definitely *heavy*