This was such an advanced plane that it's hard to believe it began in 1934. 110V internal power, 2 electric generators onboard, autopilot, deicing, and crawl tunnels in the wings. I'd forgotten it was designed to use four 2600 HP engines, but had to make do with 850 HP. Apparently it also lifted a 31,205 lb payload to 8200 feet in 1939. I passed by its final resting place many times.
@@jed-henrywitkowski6470 When the AF decided to scrap the plane they stripped it and shoved the airframe to the end of the runway at Albrook Field Panama. It slowly sunk into the swampy ground and years later slum housing was built on poles over that location.
Damn. What a sad ending. Being sent to Evergreen in Tucson (I think the name has changed in the past few years) to be scrapped, would have been a better demise. @@mikep490
The 110 internal power you speak of IS NOT the same as land based line power. Aircraft/ WWII 115V AC was 400 cycles, generated by such things as motor generators or dynomotors--an electric motor and generator wound on the same armature. Basic power in most aircraft is 24V. The 400Hz AC uses much lighter transformers and components, and can NOT be operated on 60hz line power. I am somewhat familiar with some of the WWII radio/ other electrical equipment, first licensed as a radio amateur in 1965. I still have just a few pieces of WWII aircraft equipment.
@@fourfortyroadrunner6701 That is interesting, thnx. The document I read said 110V internal power, but I assume the twin putt putt engines were like in other bombers. The B-29 used them to crank up engine #3... and they were left running during take off and landings in case of engine fail.
At the time of these bombers it was a case of desire outstripping technology. Engine development was fraught with problems getting power from units without ripping the engines to pieces or damping vibration enough to keep them on the airframe during flight. Everything was calculated using slide rules, pencils and paper and what they managed to produce was a heck of a lot harder to do than what's possible now.
True. I was on the first official passenger flight of the C5a from Pope AFB to Marietta, GA. Considering I had only flown on C-130s previously, it was awesome.
B17 could carry 2000kg if flying over 800 miles. Lancaster carried 6400kg. Need 3 B17s for same impact. Modified Lanc carried 10000kg (22,000lb) Grand Slam earthquake bomb
Max takeoff weight of both aircraft is very similar. I don't think you are comparing apples to apples. If you drain most of the fuel and remove the guns/armor a b17 has a huge payload as well. The Lancaster was not outfitted like a b17.
That is so very sad that this 1 of a kind aircraft has been gone for so very long, it just breaks my heart. I wish that these people wouldn't scrape airplane history so fast. I'm still glad that the YF-23s are still around to look at. This shows us where we started, where we came from, and where we are going.
3:37 Yeah, but no. The XB-15 was not pressurized. There was a design study for a follow up model 316 that was going investigate pressurization and tricycle landing gear. Something you failed to add why the XB-15 was able to last so long in its prototype designation and later cargo modification was the model 314 flying boat that used the same wing design and engines as the XB-15 so some form of repalcement parts was available to keep it flying.
The Wright R-3350 Duplex-Cyclone was one of the most powerful radial aircraft engines produced by the United States. Based on the earlier Wright Cyclone engines, the R-3350 first ran in May 1937, and its first major military use was to power the Boeing B-29 So the XB would have been eclipsed anyway....
I'm not so sure. Look at the thickness of the wing at the root. I think that due to the drag, that beast was going to be a 250 mph aircraft, regardless of the amount of power you put into it. The R2800 was a superb engine, there is no doubt. But along with the larger displacement came higher weight -- 2358 lbs. The R1830 weighed 1467 lbs. The extra 4000 lbs. wouldn't have helped its performance, speed-wise, and probably would have had a significant negative effect on its range, due to the additional fuel required by the much larger engines.
It always bothers me when any type of aircraft ceases from existence. I think the foresight to save examples of them for posterity (museums) would continue to reap dividends, long after their service lives end. I grew up down the street from Wright-Pat. I remember when they had to chop up a B-36 there. Even though I was very young, watching that plane be guillotened was very bothersome. We have the Spruce Goose up here in Oregon, now (McMinnville) and just driving by the hangar and glancing inside the glass wall is enough to cause one to marvel. That same thing happens with every step through the National Air Force Museum.
Damn. That would be a horrible sight. I've always loved huge planes. In 1996 we went on a family vacation and the main destination was the Air Force Museum at Wright Patterson all because years before that I watched an episode of Wings on Discovery (loved that calming show) that featured the XB-70 Valkyrie and it said that the single surviving prototype was kept there. So the years went by, not many, and parents said out of the blue one summer we were driving to Ohio in a month and I knew immediately why and it was a nice surprise and a very big deal for me. We packed the family minivan, 1990 Plymouth Grand Voyager, and my parents, brother, and I drove (brother and I were too young to drive) from Louisiana to Ohio and that museum is AMAZING and one day is not enough to soak up everything. One of the best parts is how the restaurant for the museum is XB-70 Valkyrie themed with the glass etchings of that gorgeous plane. Whenever I see Wright Patterson AFB mentioned I immediately think of that really nice family trip and how fortunate we were to have loving parents like that.
It's a terrible shame that they destroyed a beautiful airplane, especially since it was a one-of-a-kind prototype. Too many of these were scrapped and not preserved in a museum!
Gerhard Neuman -- who ran GE's Jet engine factory had a rule --- No management without three years of dirty fingernails. It worked for him. Boeing forgot and let someone slither in.
Does no one else see the wing pitch similarity to the B-52. I went thru the comments thinking I would see "B-52" somewhere and did not. May have missed it but that feature stuck out to me and thought many would have seen it. See 10:51 and compare to a similar angled pic of the 52. Also how thick the wings are. Boeing learned a lot from this prototype.
Hand-operated then. It means that the bomber didn't have hydraulically or electrically powered turrets, all the defensive mounts were muscle-powered despite having streamlined canopies.
A class act not so long after the Wright Brothers did the first powered flight. Back when Boeing was a real aircraft company run by engineers. Biting tongue here....
XB-15, nice airframe, unfortunately about five-seven years ahead of the engine power it needed, likewise the Douglas XB-19, powered aviation’s pace has mostly been set by reliable engine power. Also often overlooked in how the manufacturers learnt how to built large aircraft is the ruthless Juan Trippe, head of Pan Am. His demands for large long range flying boats give rise to both the Boeing Clippers (which used the XB-15 wings/engines) and the four engined Martin boats. Of course, the market was too small to cover the development costs, never mind make a profit. The best spin-off from the XB-15 was the more realistic B-17.
Well just like the Sherman tank, this aircraft is proof that in the sky like on the ground, it’s not the best that wins. It’s the quantity produced and mechanic fleet a side can maintain.
B-24 8,000 pounds of bombs at 500 miles. Maximum speed: 297 mph (478 km/h, 258 kn) at 25,000 ft (7,600 m) Cruise speed: 215 mph (346 km/h, 187 kn) Stall speed: 95 mph (153 km/h, 83 kn) Range: 1,540 mi (2,480 km, 1,340 nmi) at 237 mph (206 kn; 381 km/h) and 25,000 ft (7,600 m) with normal fuel and maximum internal bomb load.
The only advanced counterpart of the XB-15 would have been the B-29, however. The B-17 was just an unpressurized, smaller-scale version of the XB-15 using the same engines.
jimw B17 used the Wright R1820 XB15 used the PW R1830's !!!! similiar not the same and the Wright R 1820 was supercharged and TURBOcharged, two stage supercharged at 1200 HP !!!! the B24 used the PW R1830's that were also supercharged and TURBO charged, two stage and also 1200 HP !!!
B15 and B19 flew expedited cargo throughout the war coast to coast. Completely practical airplanes. Boeing's genius. Get the gov't to pay for a bomber prototype, then build the airliner version ( Boeing 314 Clipper ) R&D paid for. Even the 747 was a failure for what became the C5. It was never intended to win.....
I often wonder WHY if the 4 PW R1830's were not enough power why not ad 2 more engines to 6 ??? Or as in the Pan AM clipper flying boat use the Wright R2600's ?????
@@patrickradcliffe3837 WRONG !!! WRONG !!! ALL F'n WRONG !!!! The Pan Am Boeing 314 clipper used the wing of the XB15 but upgraded the engines to the Wright R2600 doubling the power of the PW R1830's !!!! Know what you are blabbering on about !!!
Without logistics, everything else is screwed. Becoming a cargo plane might not be glamorous but it's a vital and honourable role. The Yanks were and still are some of the best proponents of that.
This is the plane from which the B-17 was designed. btw - the video would have been a LOT better to watch if the image hadn't been stretched out like that. Everything was badly distorted. Otherwise, good video.
Boeing has come a long way since although it kinda lost its reputation by now as a trend setter of aviation. It now has more a reputation of a lost cause.
@@christopherrobinson7541 No ,. learn your/the history. It actually did cost 3 billion US dollars to develop he B 29 to front duty contra the 1.9 billion for the Manhattan project
@@tellyonthewall8751 BUT.... the manhattan project is still today costing billions of dollars a year for clean up at Hanford Washington, where they refined the uranium for the A Bombs !!
I was expecting to see the name Howard Hughes in this video. Maybe he was responsible for placing those swimsuit-wearing beauties on the leading edge of the plane's wings at 3:29.
Argue as much as you like. B-17 or Lancaster. Unless loaded with atomic weapons aircraft can’t win a war. The main thing that wins wars is good logistics. Without the right material in the right place at the right time you might as well pack up and go home.
As much as I enjoy this series, it amuses me how you manage to stretch 10 minutes of material into 20 by repeating the same info over and over. How many times in this episode was the fact the B-15 laid the ground work for the B-17 repeated? At least four or five times. Sometimes using the exact same dialog.
They built too many planes at that time. When war ends, too many brand new never flowened but are obsolescenced by jet age planes sting in the desert to scrap. If usa keep a1 skyraider fleet for 30 year in the desert, they don't looking for close combat plane today for an ex...
This was such an advanced plane that it's hard to believe it began in 1934. 110V internal power, 2 electric generators onboard, autopilot, deicing, and crawl tunnels in the wings. I'd forgotten it was designed to use four 2600 HP engines, but had to make do with 850 HP. Apparently it also lifted a 31,205 lb payload to 8200 feet in 1939. I passed by its final resting place many times.
Where is her grave?
@@jed-henrywitkowski6470 When the AF decided to scrap the plane they stripped it and shoved the airframe to the end of the runway at Albrook Field Panama. It slowly sunk into the swampy ground and years later slum housing was built on poles over that location.
Damn. What a sad ending.
Being sent to Evergreen in Tucson (I think the name has changed in the past few years) to be scrapped, would have been a better demise. @@mikep490
The 110 internal power you speak of IS NOT the same as land based line power. Aircraft/ WWII 115V AC was 400 cycles, generated by such things as motor generators or dynomotors--an electric motor and generator wound on the same armature. Basic power in most aircraft is 24V. The 400Hz AC uses much lighter transformers and components, and can NOT be operated on 60hz line power. I am somewhat familiar with some of the WWII radio/ other electrical equipment, first licensed as a radio amateur in 1965. I still have just a few pieces of WWII aircraft equipment.
@@fourfortyroadrunner6701 That is interesting, thnx. The document I read said 110V internal power, but I assume the twin putt putt engines were like in other bombers. The B-29 used them to crank up engine #3... and they were left running during take off and landings in case of engine fail.
A beautiful design that captures the "Streamline Moderne" style of the 1930s.
The number of aircraft designs where the phrase "underpowered engines" killed their chances to be adopted is awesome.
Therefore Designing aircraft is easier than designing engines!
"Underpowered engines" is just an euphemism used by aircraft designers in place of "overweight airframe".
At the time of these bombers it was a case of desire outstripping technology. Engine development was fraught with problems getting power from units without ripping the engines to pieces or damping vibration enough to keep them on the airframe during flight. Everything was calculated using slide rules, pencils and paper and what they managed to produce was a heck of a lot harder to do than what's possible now.
Starting from the wings of wood and canvas, operated by human power, designed by Leonardo Da Vinci.
Airframe designers based their work on projected engine power. Often that never materialised or resulted in self combusting engines (B29).
Definitely should have spared that one for the USAFM at Wright-Pat.
I have the impression that they are keeping an eye on the site where it was buried.
I was in the USAF for 20 years and never heard of the XC-105. I worked C-5s for 13 years and in many ways this was the C-5 of the 30's.
True. I was on the first official passenger flight of the C5a from Pope AFB to Marietta, GA. Considering I had only flown on C-130s previously, it was awesome.
Those great days when Boeing aircraft that didn't fall apart in the air.
ya mean the: before DEI days????
@@Lightning613Just what I was going to say. You beat me to it. 👍
sAME HERE
DEI has nothing to do with it ....
The problem is that the bean counters took over and prioritized short term profits over long term safety
@@DarksideDave42 Yup that merger with pennypinching McD was the beginning of the end.
Back when Boeing was great! Today, destroyed by corporate greed.
It has been Boeing in name only since the merger with McDonnell Douglas
Greed is timeles.
Not just greed, but idiotic employee choices.
It went downhill after McDonnell Douglas bought them out using Boeing's money.
True ....
John Oliver did a lengthy analysis of the problem a few weeks ago ....
The wrong camel ended up on top ....
The foundations of aviation are always moving forward. it is a pity the one model of it could not be museumed
B17 could carry 2000kg if flying over 800 miles. Lancaster carried 6400kg. Need 3 B17s for same impact. Modified Lanc carried 10000kg (22,000lb) Grand Slam earthquake bomb
Max takeoff weight of both aircraft is very similar. I don't think you are comparing apples to apples. If you drain most of the fuel and remove the guns/armor a b17 has a huge payload as well. The Lancaster was not outfitted like a b17.
But without the B17s the British would be speaking German.
Need 3x B17, recieved 300x. So kinda equals out m8.
.303 vs. 50? 6 mgs vs 11 mgs?
There is reason Lancaster flew at night in the dark while B17s & B24s flew during the day. Guts and .50 cal. Guns.
That is so very sad that this 1 of a kind aircraft has been gone for so very long, it just breaks my heart. I wish that these people wouldn't scrape airplane history so fast. I'm still glad that the YF-23s are still around to look at. This shows us where we started, where we came from, and where we are going.
What an absolutely beautiful plane, I can't believe I've never heard of it before, this is awesome!
Excellent report on a little known Giant of Aviation History which I wasn't aware of.
You continue to inform & educate!
i see alot of the b-17 and b-29 in this plane
I can also see the precursor of the B-29. A beautiful aircraft.
3:37 Yeah, but no. The XB-15 was not pressurized. There was a design study for a follow up model 316 that was going investigate pressurization and tricycle landing gear.
Something you failed to add why the XB-15 was able to last so long in its prototype designation and later cargo modification was the model 314 flying boat that used the same wing design and engines as the XB-15 so some form of repalcement parts was available to keep it flying.
I would think that a pressurized bomber would suddenly become unpressurized with a single bullet hole in the fuselage.
Crew were provided with lino tiles to put over the bullet holes.
Boeing 314 flying Boat used the XB15 wing but upgraded to the Wright R2600 engines, double the power !!!
With the later R2800 engines, and power-operated turrets, it would have been a superb bomber.
The Wright R-3350 Duplex-Cyclone was one of the most powerful radial aircraft engines produced by the United States. Based on the earlier Wright Cyclone engines, the R-3350 first ran in May 1937, and its first major military use was to power the Boeing B-29
So the XB would have been eclipsed anyway....
I'm not so sure. Look at the thickness of the wing at the root. I think that due to the drag, that beast was going to be a 250 mph aircraft, regardless of the amount of power you put into it. The R2800 was a superb engine, there is no doubt. But along with the larger displacement came higher weight -- 2358 lbs. The R1830 weighed 1467 lbs. The extra 4000 lbs. wouldn't have helped its performance, speed-wise, and probably would have had a significant negative effect on its range, due to the additional fuel required by the much larger engines.
GR8 vid. A good pairing w/ the YB-19 from a couple of years ago. 👍👍
At 5:50 you probably want to edit, the XB-15 wingspan was nearly one and a half times that of the B-17.
@orcstr8d The Douglas XB-19 was larger with a wingspan of 212 feet
@@bikes02 that would be double the span of the B-17!
@@orcstr8d A prototype was built and flown search youtube Rex's Hanger The Bomber That Made The B-17 Look Small | Douglas XB-19
Nice juxtaposition of the glimpse into the future of the B-15 and that little end of an era P-26 Peashooter......
It always bothers me when any type of aircraft ceases from existence. I think the foresight to save examples of them for posterity (museums) would continue to reap dividends, long after their service lives end. I grew up down the street from Wright-Pat. I remember when they had to chop up a B-36 there. Even though I was very young, watching that plane be guillotened was very bothersome. We have the Spruce Goose up here in Oregon, now (McMinnville) and just driving by the hangar and glancing inside the glass wall is enough to cause one to marvel. That same thing happens with every step through the National Air Force Museum.
Damn. That would be a horrible sight. I've always loved huge planes. In 1996 we went on a family vacation and the main destination was the Air Force Museum at Wright Patterson all because years before that I watched an episode of Wings on Discovery (loved that calming show) that featured the XB-70 Valkyrie and it said that the single surviving prototype was kept there. So the years went by, not many, and parents said out of the blue one summer we were driving to Ohio in a month and I knew immediately why and it was a nice surprise and a very big deal for me. We packed the family minivan, 1990 Plymouth Grand Voyager, and my parents, brother, and I drove (brother and I were too young to drive) from Louisiana to Ohio and that museum is AMAZING and one day is not enough to soak up everything. One of the best parts is how the restaurant for the museum is XB-70 Valkyrie themed with the glass etchings of that gorgeous plane. Whenever I see Wright Patterson AFB mentioned I immediately think of that really nice family trip and how fortunate we were to have loving parents like that.
Fantastic vid! Thanks
As much as I love your videos, if I had had a drink every time you said "it's colossal wing span", I be on the floor.
It always makes me think of Bugs Bunny and the gremlin cartoon, don't know why 👍
It's a terrible shame that they destroyed a beautiful airplane, especially since it was a one-of-a-kind prototype. Too many of these were scrapped and not preserved in a museum!
It it´s somewhere in my country near to a old USAF base
How that same company now sucks so hard is beyond belief...
It wasn't full of unions back then and didn't have as many pressures by investors.
@@johnnyh3653 Didn't have to deal with DEI stupidity either.
@@williamjohnson7963My apologies, I forgot about that madness. Good catch!
@@johnnyh3653 No apologies necessary. I just wish more people knew about it.
Gerhard Neuman -- who ran GE's Jet engine factory had a rule
--- No management without three years of dirty fingernails. It worked for him.
Boeing forgot and let someone slither in.
This aircraft had more to it than I initially had thought. Thanks.
How had it compared with the Douglas XB-19 Super Bomber?
Keep these comimg please, rrally enjoy these x
Does no one else see the wing pitch similarity to the B-52. I went thru the comments thinking I would see "B-52" somewhere and did not. May have missed it but that feature stuck out to me and thought many would have seen it. See 10:51 and compare to a similar angled pic of the 52. Also how thick the wings are. Boeing learned a lot from this prototype.
The pitch down is because the angle of incidence of the wing, relative to the aircraft waterline is slightly too great.
Haven't seen any discussions of the progression from gun blisters to turrets...........
I wish this prototype and the Northrop Flying Wing prototypes were in museums.
Looks a bit like an inspiration for Consolidated's B-32 Dominator.
What a hugely interesting story. Thank you.
One of the original OG BFUFs
It sure was a big boy. It was cool to see.
You always need a prototype to create an excellent aircraft, the XB15 was this prototype.
One of a kind. Too bad they didn't keep it as a museum piece. Thanks.
03:00 Ummm... machine-guns, as a rule, are NOT hand-held.
Hand-operated then. It means that the bomber didn't have hydraulically or electrically powered turrets, all the defensive mounts were muscle-powered despite having streamlined canopies.
They are all hand held unless automatically fired😅
You have the best documentaries.
The most behemoth-y colossal-y colossal behemoth that ever behemothed its way through the sky.
A class act not so long after the Wright Brothers did the first powered flight. Back when Boeing was a real aircraft company run by engineers. Biting tongue here....
It's always about the Engines, it seems. Looks like it would have been a great bomber. It's one of those planes that, what would have been.
The B29 had a massive engine problem.
The background music reminds me of the "Blue Man Group," but not any specific song I recognize. Who is it? Thanks!
While she didn't make it to the Smithsonian, :( her DNA lives on in the B-52 Stratofortress, which is STILL around working daily!
15 TONS!
And what do you get? 🎶
Tennessee Ernie Ford was a bombardier in WWII on a B29.
1:54 & 12:07 Pretty sure that's the XB-17, not the XB-15 ???
@03:34 That sure is alotta dames and gams!
XB-15, nice airframe, unfortunately about five-seven years ahead of the engine power it needed, likewise the Douglas XB-19, powered aviation’s pace has mostly been set by reliable engine power. Also often overlooked in how the manufacturers learnt how to built large aircraft is the ruthless Juan Trippe, head of Pan Am. His demands for large long range flying boats give rise to both the Boeing Clippers (which used the XB-15 wings/engines) and the four engined Martin boats. Of course, the market was too small to cover the development costs, never mind make a profit. The best spin-off from the XB-15 was the more realistic B-17.
proteusnz WRONG !!!! The Boeing 314 Pan Am clipper used the wing from the XB15 BUT..... they upgraded to the Wright R2600 doubling the HP !!!
@@wilburfinnigan2142 Thank you, my mistake, I stand corrected.
Well just like the Sherman tank, this aircraft is proof that in the sky like on the ground, it’s not the best that wins. It’s the quantity produced and mechanic fleet a side can maintain.
So what was its range? I never heard it mentioned.
Such a sad and ignominious end.
Cutting Edge！
I don't think people these days can understand what the B-17 flying fortress was. It was awesome for the period it was hot. They wrote songs about it!
Beautiful Airplane !!!
Very nicey presented.
They did some crazy stuff in the 1930's...
Fast Forward to 2024....
Where is my Flying Car????
you can make seats inside wings that big
B-24 8,000 pounds of bombs at 500 miles. Maximum speed: 297 mph (478 km/h, 258 kn) at 25,000 ft (7,600 m)
Cruise speed: 215 mph (346 km/h, 187 kn)
Stall speed: 95 mph (153 km/h, 83 kn)
Range: 1,540 mi (2,480 km, 1,340 nmi) at 237 mph (206 kn; 381 km/h) and 25,000 ft (7,600 m) with normal fuel and maximum internal bomb load.
The only advanced counterpart of the XB-15 would have been the B-29, however. The B-17 was just an unpressurized, smaller-scale version of the XB-15 using the same engines.
jimw B17 used the Wright R1820 XB15 used the PW R1830's !!!! similiar not the same and the Wright R 1820 was supercharged and TURBOcharged, two stage supercharged at 1200 HP !!!! the B24 used the PW R1830's that were also supercharged and TURBO charged, two stage and also 1200 HP !!!
B15 and B19 flew expedited cargo throughout the war coast to coast. Completely practical airplanes. Boeing's genius. Get the gov't to pay for a bomber prototype, then build the airliner version ( Boeing 314 Clipper ) R&D paid for. Even the 747 was a failure for what became the C5. It was never intended to win.....
I often wonder WHY if the 4 PW R1830's were not enough power why not ad 2 more engines to 6 ??? Or as in the Pan AM clipper flying boat use the Wright R2600's ?????
The Boeing model 314 "Pan Am Clippers" used the same wing and engines as the XB-15
Mo engines mo problems.
@@patrickradcliffe3837 WRONG !!! WRONG !!! ALL F'n WRONG !!!! The Pan Am Boeing 314 clipper used the wing of the XB15 but upgraded the engines to the Wright R2600 doubling the power of the PW R1830's !!!! Know what you are blabbering on about !!!
Without logistics, everything else is screwed. Becoming a cargo plane might not be glamorous but it's a vital and honourable role. The Yanks were and still are some of the best proponents of that.
This is the plane from which the B-17 was designed. btw - the video would have been a LOT better to watch if the image hadn't been stretched out like that. Everything was badly distorted. Otherwise, good video.
I wonder this aircraft competes with the similarly sized bomber prototype from Douglas, the XB-19
Looks better than the 17 imho
It doesn't matter how nice a plane is, if the engines are crap then the whole plane is crap. It becomes a slow moving, easy target in the sky.
@ 3:33 that must have been a scandalis picture at the time!
Yup, the Antonov AN225 of it's time.
I wonder how it would have done with Pratt and Whitney R-2800 or Wright R-3350 power.
scootergeorge the Boeing Pan Am 314 flying boat used the XB15 wing but switched to the Wright R 2600
Boeing isn't flying so high these days...lack of respect for paying attention to detail. Shame...
It showed up this time.
Boeing has come a long way since although it kinda lost its reputation by now as a trend setter of aviation. It now has more a reputation of a lost cause.
How come, they didn’t pressurize the B-17
The waist gunners had open holes in the fuselage - that would not be possible to pressurize. 🧐
Having the XB-15, it still did cost more to develop the B-29, than the Manhattan project
Incorrect.
@@christopherrobinson7541 No ,. learn your/the history. It actually did cost 3 billion US dollars to develop he B 29 to front duty contra the 1.9 billion for the Manhattan project
@@tellyonthewall8751 BUT.... the manhattan project is still today costing billions of dollars a year for clean up at Hanford Washington, where they refined the uranium for the A Bombs !!
@@wilburfinnigan2142 no ... manhattan project were closed loooong time ago
I do not know why such historical and unique aircraft are nearly always scrapped instead of being preserved for posterity.
It looks like the B-19 to me.
Great piece. When Boeing made the best, unlike the Max 777 & the entire new products line not to mention the Starliner fiasco.
Why is there "music"?
So we can dance.
if ya can't get it there you can't fight with it
If only the U.S. had a fleet of these after the attack at Pearl Harbor....
Some aircraft that. Pity it had the underpowered engines. Would have been an awesome addition to the allies arsenal in WW2.
Good crop there.
shame it was preserved for the usaf museum.
Using click bait fake picture on the video is beneath you. The plane on the cover foto is not a 40.
I’m thinking the B-15 was the C-5 of its era.
ANT 25 first flight `1933 -- flew over north pole.
I was expecting to see the name Howard Hughes in this video. Maybe he was responsible for placing those swimsuit-wearing beauties on the leading edge of the plane's wings at 3:29.
Aircraft Name: Boeing Xb-15
:Developed by William E Boeing:
Fate: Cancelled
:The XB-15 Was Dismantled In Panama:
The Douglas XB-19 was larger with a wingspan of 212 feet
Was it 100% genuinely scrapped
Not so super then.
B17s carried gunners and a bomb or two.
ALL AIRCRAFT CARRY THEIR OWN BULK. (...smh...)
Argue as much as you like. B-17 or Lancaster. Unless loaded with atomic weapons aircraft can’t win a war. The main thing that wins wars is good logistics. Without the right material in the right place at the right time you might as well pack up and go home.
Indian HF24 Marut faced same problem in 60s
Fully pressurized? Sure you're reading the right brochure?
As much as I enjoy this series, it amuses me how you manage to stretch 10 minutes of material into 20 by repeating the same info over and over. How many times in this episode was the fact the B-15 laid the ground work for the B-17 repeated? At least four or five times. Sometimes using the exact same dialog.
A bit less jingoistic language and more factual information would be better
Counter rotating hmm
it was the biggest till convair built the B 36
der text geht gar nicht ! 1,5 min sind genug !
What was wrong with the short sighted idiots back then?!! They were always scrapping iconic aircraft.
End of the war everyone wanted to forget & get back to their interrupted lives, & development of jet aircraft.
They built too many planes at that time. When war ends, too many brand new never flowened but are obsolescenced by jet age planes sting in the desert to scrap. If usa keep a1 skyraider fleet for 30 year in the desert, they don't looking for close combat plane today for an ex...