These AI created story-lines all have the same faults, they can't get number combinations spoken correctly and they all seem to lift images and other material from other real, IE Human, topic creator's works and then collage them into their narrated story-lines. Interesting topics, yes. Original...No. Result: Channel owners of these sites get paid for each view/Like/click/subscribe regardless of how they were created or by whom, and when done by AI, it s effortless and thousand can be created by an AI, generating funds without any real talent or effort by the channel owner...
The pre-war-designed P-38 had the same payload, same top speed, but far better performance at high altitude. The Mixmaster carried FAR more than the Mosquito, anyway.
@@lqr824 Really? I suggest you research just how bad the performance of the P38 dropped to when it carried bombs. How fast, how high and how far a P38 would fly with a bomb-load of 2,000lbs let alone 4,000lbs of the Mosquito? Perhaps you could post evidence that the P38 carried 4,000lbs of bombs? Care to post comparative data for both aircraft?
Mosquito the best bomber period of ww2.... spitfire best fighter of ww2 tempest 11 fastest fighter of ww2 all british, thats why it infuriates because thr british.....
Interesting at 4:05 to see the Douglas engineers at a table with a Douglas DC-8 jetliner display model in the center. The DC-8 first flew on May 30, 1958, at Long Beach, California. Close to 13 years after WWII came to an end.
Ditto at 12:04. (I was guessing the plane might be a 707 and the engineers Boeing guys. DC8 and 707 look enough alike that I can't accurately tell the difference. Someone with more knowledge than I have, would have to point out what to look for.)
@@glenatgoogle4393 I have that exact Douglas factory model except in United Airlines livery (the model in the video has the Douglas DC-8 prototype markings).
@@WAL_DC-6B - Don't misunderstand, I was not questioning your observation or expertise. Any 4 engine, narrow body, civilian type jet liner of that era, would probably look like a 707 to me. 😃
@@glenatgoogle4393 Oh, I agree, to many the 707, DC-8 and even the Convair 880 looked similar. I'm just saying that I have that model as seen on the table with all the engineers sitting around it.
I had a model of P-38 as a kid in the USSR. The manufacturers forgot to include paint in the set, and the only paints I had left were silvery-metallic (left over from Tu-95 I think) and white, from another passenger jet. So it was left unpainted. Of course, I couldn't even dream of XB-42 back then, it was too rare a plane to expect to see it in the hobbyist store, so far from its home. But the P-38 was still the weirdest plane in my collection - a mix of "Shturmovik" , coaxial rotor copter and Formula 1. 😂
If my landing gear isn't retracting on a test flight, I sure as hell am not going to raise it using the emergency system but I'd go back and land instead.
Hydraulics and electric motors were not as reliable in those days and the systems referred to here were probably referred to as a back up system, not an emergency system. Back up manual systems are still fitted to planes today but, hopefully, don't have to be used as often. Test pilots probably had more concerns about the plane falling out of the sky than if the undercarriage worked flawlessly.
I suspect wartime test flights of innovative combat technology were conducted under greater urgency than peacetime test flights of non-combat aircraft.
if youuve hit the retract button and it doesnt retract, you dont automatically assume its still locked down,, if youve hit the button, its now "unlocked" fas far as we're concerned and must be cycled fully up and down before it can be safely used to land
B-17 max take off weight, minus it's gross weight (which should include fuel and ammo, but might not include crew), gives 11,500 pounds (5,216kg) payload mass. Subtracting the average mass of a person, by the number of crew, might give 4,800 kilos, or a little under 10,600 pounds.
@@raymondo162 I'll hit your dislike button every time I see you repeat this cut-and-paste comment. Say something original! Or are you a bot that's programmed to post the same thing?
The B-29's range was over 5500 miles and its top speed over 350 mph, and its $3 billion program cost did not "limit its viability", if that phrase even means anything. I stopped listening at this point, else I'm confident I'd have heard more false numbers or meaningless statements.
Three similar planes within a similar time-frame: Dornier Do-335 'Anteater' , the Yokosuka P2Y 'Seieun' , and the Douglas XB-42 'Mixmaster'. One had both engines driving two front props, one had two engines driving a prop at front and back, and one had two engines driving both props at the rear. All three were expected to be replaced by jet-powered versions in due time. Only the Douglas XB-42 was, becoming the Douglas B-43 Jetmaster.
My mother worked at Douglas in Long Beach Ca. during WWII. She was given a Top Secret clearance to work on "Projects", her words. She was never specific, and said she was never given permission to talk about it.
3:25, "...........if the Allies could develop faster bombers.........", well the British did EXACTLY that, it was called the de Havilland DH 98 "Mosquito", it was fast, could carry the same bomb load as a B17 over the same distance, only had two crew, could hit pinpoint targets with extreme accuracy and bugger off faster than the pursuing fighters, it was the bomber that had the lowest loss rate of WW2, in crew and aircraft, you guys should do better 'research'.
Nah, the P-38 had the same speed, range, and payload, but could fly far faster at high altitude, and was available years before the Mosquito. The purpose of the eighth Air Force wasn't to drop bombs, it was to establish air superiority over the continent by destroying all Germany's fighters, in preparation for invasion. The Mosquito and P-38 weren't employed for bombing, because bombing wasn't the freaking point.
@@lqr824 Really? I suggest you research just how bad the performance of the P38 dropped to when it carried bombs. How fast, how high and how far a P38 would fly with a bomb-load of 2,000lbs let alone 4,000lbs of the Mosquito? Perhaps you could post evidence that the P38 carried 4,000lbs of bombs? Care to post comparative data for both aircraft?
Eeeeh, ya might wanna have a REAL dude that ACTUALLY knows what's up doing the narration. The only people who won't catch that is young'uns who aren't sharp, most who won't care about these topics.
One could have mentioned Dornier’s existing research into the centreline thrust concept which had already led to a proof of concept prototype when the Mixmaster was conceived. Also the first 335 Pfeil prototype already flew in 1943.
Really annoying when there is irrelevant or incorrect film footage used or repeated views. Shows slack editing. Otherwise some interesting footage of the actual aircraft.
Exactly what I thought, the americans took the surviving ones after the war as well, that is probably where this came from. The Germans were way ahead in technology
I worked for the phone company on a contract with McDonnell Douglas aircraft company in Long Beach when they were developing the C-17. I never knew about this aircraft at all until now.
The American XB 42 was a direct copy of the Dornier Do 335 which had a top speed of 495 mph with an alcohol boost and only 48 were completed before the end of WW2.
@3:55 - stating this is 1943 at Douglas Aircraft Co - there is a line of swept-wing bombers which must be B-47s? In 1943? Either those aren't B-47s or it isn't 1943?
Back then, a slide ruler and a B-29, P38, even the Me-262, and many more miraculous machines were made. Today, computers, and the Boeing 737 Max series is created. Is this really progress?
737 Max probably has 1000x fewer accidents per flight-hour, as well as far higher payload and longer range and better top speed. Remember in those days like 10% of the planes a year would just crash while not even in combat.
Modern airlines have been considering going back to propeller driven planes but the slower speed and the noise seems to cancel out the benefits of the lesser fuel consumption. I wonder if this format of aircraft with the counter rotating rear propellers would make for a good compromise given its higher speed, less drag, lower noise, and better fuel efficiency.
@@marsmars9130 Yugoslavia were still fling them in 1962. The Mosquitoes which were converted to TT Mk.35 target tugs after the war, were still flying in 1963, there are 5 still airworthy. How long do you need them to fly for??
@@rogermatheny5512 hmm interesting connection. By the way, the fundamental aerodynamic research of swept wings was done by the Germans and the captured data after the defeat of Germany was used by both the US and USSR which is why the Air Sabre and early MiG jet fighters than appeared in Korean War has based on the same design data
So, the pusher propeller makes many people think in this comment section, that this is a "copy" of Do 335. In fact, this is a completely different aircraft.
Heck when the Mosquito was developed, a bomber with similar performance was already in service in Europe, the P-38, with similar range, speed, and payload, but far faster at high altitude. Also you sound really silly ignoring the massively improved payload and range.
After reading the comments I'm not doing the video. There was another plane the AAF never asked for and didn't want. The Merlin engined P-51. They fought that off for a couple of years.
1:16 "America's daylight precision bombing missions" - that's supposed to be a bad joke! The Allies exclusively carried out carpet bombings on the densely populated German inner cities. If a factory or similar was accidentally hit in the process, they considered that an added bonus.
The museum at Wright Patt ia amazing. Well worth a trip. I have been there several times. One time they even had a biplane simulated dogfight over a field right by the museum. They also have a virtual tour on their site. Though nothing matches going yourself. It's still nice.
Mosquito top speed 408mph, bomb load 4000 lbs, range 1500 miles - B17 top speed 287mph bomb load 4800 lbs range 2000 miles Mosquito could outrun all fighters for most of the war, pinpoint bombing and lowest loss rate. Why did the RAF and USA not use thousands of cheap and easy to build Mosquitoes? because Bomber Harris and his US counterparts wanted to punish the Germans who were correct in calling them terrorists. With more accurate bombing the war in Europe could have been shorter, fewer civilans killed, fewer bomber crews lost but the top brass wanted vengeance. Harris said as much.
I don’t think it was a bad concept at all. If people don’t explore ideas technology stagnates. Douglas proposed an airliner with liquid cooled engines buried in the fuselage and counterrotating pusher props too. The XB-42 was largely a dead end because it was eclipsed by the rise of jet technology, certainly not because it was a foolish idea. It is a bit disappointing to see so many people mocking it.
It was a flying gun with 8000 pound bomb with clear plexiglass front to see and shoot the target. Was it built in Hazelwood, Missouri? Looks like one my grandpa would have known. Never seen one at a AFB airshow. Finally Hill AFB is going to do a big airshow which hasn't really been a thing since 2019 and is only every two years in 2020's instead of annual. A hot fiery June day is coming just before the 4th of July.
It seems that a rear mounted propeller would be always better than a front mounted propeller. The fuselage and wings would be in smooth air if the propeller is in the back. This is just my completely worthless opionion that requires no regard nor consideration.
In the days when the firm was run by engineers rather than accountants and then shareholder value enhancement philosophy...executives. Look how that worked out for them and then Boeing..
Or. . .They could have just licensed and built de Havilland Mosquitos. Then you have a 400+mph bomber with a great bomb load. It could fly high altitude missions and tree top missions. They also could give "Fokey-Wolfs " a run for their money.
Whether this movie is true or not. What is true is that World War II led to many new inventions in many fields. It also accelerated the development of jet-powered aircraft.
@@jakobquick6875I’m not sure which culture you hail from, but in the US we don’t consider V engines “inline”. Inline engines are different than a “V” configuration.
@@556m4 Your assumption is correct for the *Automotive* Community in the US, but in Aviation circles, the use of Inline [regardless of cylinder banks] vs Radial is correct. Aviation inline powerplants can have single inline, V-inline, tri-inline and X-inline configurations.
These AI created story-lines all have the same faults, they can't get number combinations spoken correctly and they all seem to lift images and other material from other real, IE Human, topic creator's works and then collage them into their narrated story-lines. Interesting topics, yes. Original...No. Result: Channel owners of these sites get paid for each view/Like/click/subscribe regardless of how they were created or by whom, and when done by AI, it s effortless and thousand can be created by an AI, generating funds without any real talent or effort by the channel owner...
Blocking this channel
I would legit volunteer my time and voice to fix this fubar excuse of a doc
Agreed. Garbage. I click right out.
I just block them.
Thanks for the heads up. I will block them as well.
Douglas did NOT submit their design to the USAF in 1943 for the obvious reason that the USAF was created in 1947.
United States Army Air Corps, United States Army Air Forces, United States Air Force.
That's A.I. for you.
You mean the "USF", whatever that is.
@@SteamCrane You-Saf
there are so many gross errors of fact in this video they daren't actually call it a "documentary".
Many factual errors.
The first error wasn't 2 minutes into the story: Both the B24 and B17 had the same engines.
The allies did design and build faster bombers. It was called the de Havilland Mosquito.
Right in One! And the B26 was no slouch, once they fixed all the problems.
The pre-war-designed P-38 had the same payload, same top speed, but far better performance at high altitude. The Mixmaster carried FAR more than the Mosquito, anyway.
@@lqr824 Really? I suggest you research just how bad the performance of the P38 dropped to when it carried bombs. How fast, how high and how far a P38 would fly with a bomb-load of 2,000lbs let alone 4,000lbs of the Mosquito?
Perhaps you could post evidence that the P38 carried 4,000lbs of bombs?
Care to post comparative data for both aircraft?
Not only that, but the Mosquito first flew in November 1940 and was capable of 408mph, 4 years earlier than the XB-42 first flight.
Mosquito the best bomber period of ww2.... spitfire best fighter of ww2 tempest 11 fastest fighter of ww2 all british, thats why it infuriates because thr british.....
"...the FOKEY WOLF"...🙄
It’s hard to find well narrated channels
It was the Funky Wolf. It played loud disco music to annoy allied pilots.
@herschelmayo2727 Sorry to disappoint you mate, but Disco came out in the 1970s, not the friggin' 40s! 🙄
hit the dislike button - it's the ONLY way.............................. ??
@@manuwilson4695 You have a hard time recognizing a sarcastic post, don't you?
Love Douglas Aircraft But Not This Terrible Narration. What A Shame You Can't Find Humans Who Can Read Anymore. Thank You.
Hey at least they can write properly.
hit the dislike button - it's the ONLY way.............................. ??
You are more than free to make your own video.
Yeah I won't even subscribe. Will stick with Dark Skies.
@@laurencek.1580 LOL that's setting the bar high!
Interesting at 4:05 to see the Douglas engineers at a table with a Douglas DC-8 jetliner display model in the center. The DC-8 first flew on May 30, 1958, at Long Beach, California. Close to 13 years after WWII came to an end.
.....and black engineers/draughtsmen in 1944!
Ditto at 12:04. (I was guessing the plane might be a 707 and the engineers Boeing guys. DC8 and 707 look enough alike that I can't accurately tell the difference. Someone with more knowledge than I have, would have to point out what to look for.)
@@glenatgoogle4393 I have that exact Douglas factory model except in United Airlines livery (the model in the video has the Douglas DC-8 prototype markings).
@@WAL_DC-6B - Don't misunderstand, I was not questioning your observation or expertise. Any 4 engine, narrow body, civilian type jet liner of that era, would probably look like a 707 to me. 😃
@@glenatgoogle4393 Oh, I agree, to many the 707, DC-8 and even the Convair 880 looked similar. I'm just saying that I have that model as seen on the table with all the engineers sitting around it.
AI reading. Ugh.
People are lazy.
hit the dislike button - it's the ONLY way.............................. ??
How clever of you to notice.
Three thous two hoonder 50 miles.
@@kd4pba Not lazy, greedy.
I had a model of P-38 as a kid in the USSR. The manufacturers forgot to include paint in the set, and the only paints I had left were silvery-metallic (left over from Tu-95 I think) and white, from another passenger jet. So it was left unpainted. Of course, I couldn't even dream of XB-42 back then, it was too rare a plane to expect to see it in the hobbyist store, so far from its home. But the P-38 was still the weirdest plane in my collection - a mix of "Shturmovik" , coaxial rotor copter and Formula 1. 😂
Peacemaker may have been the weirdest.
@@lqr824 I had the P38 and the Sturmovik. It's what kids did before they invented the mobile phone...
The horrid AI pronunciation ruined the video.
Yup!
Folkiewolf???
@@mustafasfleas7342 And bomber-deer.
And Ox On Hell - at least they got "Maryland" correct.
If my landing gear isn't retracting on a test flight, I sure as hell am not going to raise it using the emergency system but I'd go back and land instead.
Hydraulics and electric motors were not as reliable in those days and the systems referred to here were probably referred to as a back up system, not an emergency system. Back up manual systems are still fitted to planes today but, hopefully, don't have to be used as often. Test pilots probably had more concerns about the plane falling out of the sky than if the undercarriage worked flawlessly.
That's late 20th and 21st century pilot training. Never heard of "alternate/emergency retract" for landing gear.
I suspect wartime test flights of innovative combat technology were conducted under greater urgency than peacetime test flights of non-combat aircraft.
@@beenaplumber8379 I believe you have it .
if youuve hit the retract button and it doesnt retract, you dont automatically assume its still locked down,, if youve hit the button, its now "unlocked" fas far as we're concerned and must be cycled fully up and down before it can be safely used to land
"B-17 can carry 4,800 pounds of bombs, the B-24 8,000" Sorry, wrong
On both accounts
hit the dislike button - it's the ONLY way.............................. ??
B-17 max take off weight, minus it's gross weight (which should include fuel and ammo, but might not include crew), gives 11,500 pounds (5,216kg) payload mass. Subtracting the average mass of a person, by the number of crew, might give 4,800 kilos, or a little under 10,600 pounds.
@user-xj6rr3yv8q oh tell us all what the correct information is, Your Royal Painintheassness
@@raymondo162 I'll hit your dislike button every time I see you repeat this cut-and-paste comment. Say something original! Or are you a bot that's programmed to post the same thing?
No mention of the Dornier Do 335 Pfeil (Arrow)?
Or the Yokosuka Seieun?
Why should they mention it? It is not relevant to the aircraft story. And had nothing to do with its development.
@@stevetheduck1425for what purpose? Neither aircraft had anything to do with the design here.
@@WALTERBROADDUS really ???
@@WALTERBROADDUS really ???
In 1943 "Douglas unveiled their innovative aircraft concept to the USAF". Interesting given that the USAF didn't exist until 1947.
at 16:10 a uniformed female is walking in front of a more modern pickup truck with a more modern fiberglass topper.
The text correctly says: USAAF.
Look up the german word Haarspalterei
Tricycle undercarriage wasn't there to fit the trend of the time, but to keep those props clear of the ground . . .
The lower rear rudder was there to keep the props from striking the ground .
Unfortunately, this is an example of the future. Bits of imagery that are spliced together with an AI voiceover for next to no cost. GI = GO.
hit the dislike button - it's the ONLY way......................... ??
So make your own video.
The B-29's range was over 5500 miles and its top speed over 350 mph, and its $3 billion program cost did not "limit its viability", if that phrase even means anything. I stopped listening at this point, else I'm confident I'd have heard more false numbers or meaningless statements.
Three similar planes within a similar time-frame: Dornier Do-335 'Anteater' , the Yokosuka P2Y 'Seieun' , and the Douglas XB-42 'Mixmaster'.
One had both engines driving two front props, one had two engines driving a prop at front and back, and one had two engines driving both props at the rear.
All three were expected to be replaced by jet-powered versions in due time.
Only the Douglas XB-42 was, becoming the Douglas B-43 Jetmaster.
My mother worked at Douglas in Long Beach Ca. during WWII. She was given a Top Secret clearance to work on "Projects", her words. She was never specific, and said she was never given permission to talk about it.
A similar concept, but not as weird as Germany's Dornier Do 335, which had a prop at both ends, one to push and one to pull.
And it was wicked fast.
@@georgemacdonell2341 775 km/h
3:25, "...........if the Allies could develop faster bombers.........", well the British did EXACTLY that, it was called the de Havilland DH 98 "Mosquito", it was fast, could carry the same bomb load as a B17 over the same distance, only had two crew, could hit pinpoint targets with extreme accuracy and bugger off faster than the pursuing fighters, it was the bomber that had the lowest loss rate of WW2, in crew and aircraft, you guys should do better 'research'.
Nah, the P-38 had the same speed, range, and payload, but could fly far faster at high altitude, and was available years before the Mosquito. The purpose of the eighth Air Force wasn't to drop bombs, it was to establish air superiority over the continent by destroying all Germany's fighters, in preparation for invasion. The Mosquito and P-38 weren't employed for bombing, because bombing wasn't the freaking point.
@@lqr824 Really? I suggest you research just how bad the performance of the P38 dropped to when it carried bombs. How fast, how high and how far a P38 would fly with a bomb-load of 2,000lbs let alone 4,000lbs of the Mosquito?
Perhaps you could post evidence that the P38 carried 4,000lbs of bombs?
Care to post comparative data for both aircraft?
@@paulbantick8266 He can't, probable another blinded by American 'alternate facts'?
Hmmm a dark skies clone video channel
The principle of a pusher propeller was realized in the B-36, and they added 4 turbo jets .
Six turning four burning.
Was this video was narrated by a text-to-speech program that stumbled ridiculously over typos and abbreviations? For example, listen at 2:22.
At 2:20, what was that range again?
Lol😂😂😂
🌿
Bad data. B17 had an max internal bomb load of 8,000 lbs. Not 4,800. With external racks the B17 could carry 16,000 to 18,000 lbs.
If they almost never ran with external racks. And they could not reach their max range with those loads. It was slow as hell.
@2:23, What was the range of the B-29 again? lMAO.
Eeeeh, ya might wanna have a REAL dude that ACTUALLY knows what's up doing the narration. The only people who won't catch that is young'uns who aren't sharp, most who won't care about these topics.
even us young doods get confused by "one two hundred feet" and so on...
I think this video was narrated by a text-to-speech program that stumbled ridiculously over typos and abbreviations.
@@lqr824 Perhaps you are the compiler of this rubbish? Your post Re: the P38 v Mosquito, would lead one to such a suspicion.
One could have mentioned Dornier’s existing research into the centreline thrust concept which had already led to a proof of concept prototype when the Mixmaster was conceived. Also the first 335 Pfeil prototype already flew in 1943.
Really annoying when there is irrelevant or incorrect film footage used or repeated views. Shows slack editing. Otherwise some interesting footage of the actual aircraft.
hit the dislike button - it's the ONLY way....................... ??
Do335 imitation ? 😊
Exactly what I thought, the americans took the surviving ones after the war as well, that is probably where this came from. The Germans were way ahead in technology
This plane was clearly influenced by the really revolutionary german Dornier do-335...!!
I worked for the phone company on a contract with McDonnell Douglas aircraft company in Long Beach when they were developing the C-17. I never knew about this aircraft at all until now.
*HIRE A **_HUMAN_** ANNOUNCER, NOT A BOT!!*
hit the dislike button - it's the ONLY way..................... ??
The American XB 42 was a direct copy of the Dornier Do 335 which had a top speed of 495 mph with an alcohol boost and only 48 were completed before the end of WW2.
@3:55 - stating this is 1943 at Douglas Aircraft Co - there is a line of swept-wing bombers which must be B-47s? In 1943? Either those aren't B-47s or it isn't 1943?
Back then, a slide ruler and a B-29, P38, even the Me-262, and many more miraculous machines were made. Today, computers, and the Boeing 737 Max series is created. Is this really progress?
737 Max probably has 1000x fewer accidents per flight-hour, as well as far higher payload and longer range and better top speed. Remember in those days like 10% of the planes a year would just crash while not even in combat.
Modern airlines have been considering going back to propeller driven planes but the slower speed and the noise seems to cancel out the benefits of the lesser fuel consumption. I wonder if this format of aircraft with the counter rotating rear propellers would make for a good compromise given its higher speed, less drag, lower noise, and better fuel efficiency.
Why didn’t they just use the de Havilland Mosquito? It could fly to Berlin almost twice as fast as a B17 and back and carry a 4,000 lb bomb load.
Wood
@@marsmars9130 And it worked...very well, the Mosquito was also faster than the XB42 and flew in 1941, three years earlier.
@@ianwright963 Yup, but the air frame did not hold up to time!
Because it was made in Britain, Canada and Australia.
@@marsmars9130 Yugoslavia were still fling them in 1962.
The Mosquitoes which were converted to TT Mk.35 target tugs after the war, were still flying in 1963, there are 5 still airworthy.
How long do you need them to fly for??
Imagine this plane with swept wings, turbojets and a tailhook. A3D skywarrior
A tail hook on that design? I doubt if that design could ever operate from an aircraft carrier.
@@aristoclesathenaioi4939 evolved
@@rogermatheny5512 hmm interesting connection. By the way, the fundamental aerodynamic research of swept wings was done by the Germans and the captured data after the defeat of Germany was used by both the US and USSR which is why the Air Sabre and early MiG jet fighters than appeared in Korean War has based on the same design data
They indeed made a turbojet-powered derivative of this aircraft, the XB-43 Jetmaster.
So, the pusher propeller makes many people think in this comment section, that this is a "copy" of Do 335. In fact, this is a completely different aircraft.
It's a 2 speed supercharger, not "variable speed"'.
Allison's auxiliary stage supercharger was driven by a variable speed hydraulic coupling.
Imagine if it had managed to get into a bombing run over Germany in WW2, and a Dornier Do 335 Pfeil (Arrow) got on it's tail!
See the guys on the boards? White shirts. Ties. Slipsticks. Those pictures are from the 60;s and 70s.
Numerous narration and audio errors. Production quality is very poor. Dislike.
Higher top speed, longer range, and leading edge technology. Wow, that must be why it was so successful.
Imagine this bird with turboprops
Otto Celera 500L and 850 are the proud babies of the XB-42 Mixmaster ! Hope they will have a netter future !
Another artificial announcer.
04:06 - What's a DC-8 doing in this discussion?
And yet, a bomber with similar performnce was already in service in Europe, the DH Mosquito, that had no guns and could outrun the enemy fighters.
I was thinking the same.
Heck when the Mosquito was developed, a bomber with similar performance was already in service in Europe, the P-38, with similar range, speed, and payload, but far faster at high altitude. Also you sound really silly ignoring the massively improved payload and range.
@@GNMi79 Fair comment. I have actually always liked the Mixmaster!
It's a funny thing how common it is in WWII aircraft videos to discuss inline engines while showing footage of the assembly of radial engines!
Beautiful plane, I build a rubber powered free flight model of it which flies quite well.
7:18 so, why redact performance measures?
.there were 4 50 inch 12.5 cal machine guns” 50 inch machine guns? we are in trouble if this is the future of narration.
hit the dislike button - it's the ONLY way....................... ??
Don't drop that decimal point...
After reading the comments I'm not doing the video. There was another plane the AAF never asked for and didn't want. The Merlin engined P-51. They fought that off for a couple of years.
Fifty inch machine guns. What a time to be alive.
I can hear a "point" before the "-fifty inch."
I would like to express my appreciation for your time and efforts I've always enjoyed anything to do with aviation
1:16 "America's daylight precision bombing missions" - that's supposed to be a bad joke!
The Allies exclusively carried out carpet bombings on the densely populated German inner cities. If a factory or similar was accidentally hit in the process, they considered that an added bonus.
2:24 if you had any doubts about whether this was a robovoice... "three thoustwohoonderfifty miles"
the shock is that the numbers are all screwed up. I'd have thought as a software guy, that numbers might be the easiest thing to read right.
Just exactly is the range of a B-29 i didn't get that part.
A recurring problem with pusher type planes, at least back in those days, was keeping the engines cool.
What the F is a Folkie woolfie
A rottweiler with a tambourine...
@@kumasenlac5504 -- That's a howl!
@@kumasenlac5504😂😂😂
hit the dislike button - it's the ONLY way......................... ??
$3B??? What happened to the other Billion bucks we spent on the B-29?
hit the dislike button - it's the ONLY way.............................. ??
Anyone else notice the striking similarity between this design and that of the modern day Global Hawk Drones?
The museum at Wright Patt ia amazing. Well worth a trip. I have been there several times. One time they even had a biplane simulated dogfight over a field right by the museum. They also have a virtual tour on their site. Though nothing matches going yourself. It's still nice.
Why not employ a person who can read a script. This is almost unlistenable.
When you are flying towards someone... speed isn't so much of an issue as it is when your flying away from them.
Ah. Air Cobra
Tell me you shoplifted ideas and technology from the Dornier 335 without telling me you shoplifted ideas and technology from the Dornier 335.
Given the engine layout, I'd say you're straining.
A B-29 has a range of 'threethoustwohoundered'?, BF-109 at 'hun'? and what is a "fookieewolf'?
I can't "listininen" to this dialogue.
They should have stuck a jet engine on the back of that thing
Allegedly A&A models will be producing a 1/72 injection molded kit of this aircraft soon…. Can’t wait.
I take it you know sweet nothing regarding the rather successful De Havilland Mosquito.
The XB-42 was in a different class. It was to have had twice the bomb load of the Mosquito and a longer range.
But the mozzi was a success and this wasn't
Mosquito top speed 408mph, bomb load 4000 lbs, range 1500 miles - B17 top speed 287mph bomb load 4800 lbs range 2000 miles
Mosquito could outrun all fighters for most of the war, pinpoint bombing and lowest loss rate. Why did the RAF and USA not use thousands of cheap and easy to build Mosquitoes? because Bomber Harris and his US counterparts wanted to punish the Germans who were correct in calling them terrorists. With more accurate bombing the war in Europe could have been shorter, fewer civilans killed, fewer bomber crews lost but the top brass wanted vengeance. Harris said as much.
@@GyrocageWas to have had.
I don’t think it was a bad concept at all. If people don’t explore ideas technology stagnates. Douglas proposed an airliner with liquid cooled engines buried in the fuselage and counterrotating pusher props too.
The XB-42 was largely a dead end because it was eclipsed by the rise of jet technology, certainly not because it was a foolish idea.
It is a bit disappointing to see so many people mocking it.
what a brilliant design !
It was a flying gun with 8000 pound bomb with clear plexiglass front to see and shoot the target. Was it built in Hazelwood, Missouri? Looks like one my grandpa would have known. Never seen one at a AFB airshow. Finally Hill AFB is going to do a big airshow which hasn't really been a thing since 2019 and is only every two years in 2020's instead of annual. A hot fiery June day is coming just before the 4th of July.
MAN if Lockheed had built this, what a world we would be living in today!
It would have been a great plane to have during the Korean War.
Great vídeo 👍🏻. Great Channel 👍🏻
One more subscriber here.
Thanks OP
It seems that a rear mounted propeller would be always better than a front mounted propeller. The fuselage and wings would be in smooth air if the propeller is in the back. This is just my completely worthless opionion that requires no regard nor consideration.
Funny you didnt mention one medium bomber in your examples only full large bombers
Dornier Do 335. Although a fighter and not a bomber, obviously lend something to it.
Folky wolf?
That must have been one noisy bird. The tail basically has the design of a siren.
Looks commonplace compared to British experimental aircraft of the period.
I said US Air Force in 1949 that was a mistake the others are right it's 1947
In the days when the firm was run by engineers rather than accountants and then shareholder value enhancement philosophy...executives. Look how that worked out for them and then Boeing..
Boeing was rarely run by engineers. Boeing was a lumber baron and a capitalist, not an engineer. Most of Boeings CEOs were not engineers.
Or. . .They could have just licensed and built de Havilland Mosquitos. Then you have a 400+mph bomber with a great bomb load. It could fly high altitude missions and tree top missions. They also could give "Fokey-Wolfs " a run for their money.
I’ve seen it. It’s in one of the annex hangars at Wright Patterson AFB.
Looks a lot like the new reconnaissance drones . 💙💛
2:23 Artificial _Intelligence_ gets tongue tied.
Whether this movie is true or not. What is true is that World War II led to many new inventions in many fields. It also accelerated the development of jet-powered aircraft.
They not inline engines , they are V's.
V6 to V16…the cylinders are “Inline”😂
Not radial…”circular”
Get it?😊
@@jakobquick6875I’m not sure which culture you hail from, but in the US we don’t consider V engines “inline”. Inline engines are different than a “V” configuration.
@@556m4 Your assumption is correct for the *Automotive* Community in the US, but in Aviation circles, the use of Inline [regardless of cylinder banks] vs Radial is correct. Aviation inline powerplants can have single inline, V-inline, tri-inline and X-inline configurations.
@@HootOwl513 Then I stand corrected. Thank you for educating me. I thought I was the one adding the correct information here :)
@@556m4 Spoken like a gentleman. We are never too old to learn new things.
I have read they didn't pursue developing this aircraft due to problems with engine over heating.
2:24 Uh, how many miles?
Awesome!
Just think of this aircraft with RR merlin engines, and De Haviland type Aerodynamic upgrades, NOW that would be a fast medium bomber!
Imagine if they built it out of wood like the Mosquito, just imagine.
"the engine's cool" is that a real term? sounds like a hip jazz airplane
Stock footage included scenes around a Boeing 707…. Hahahah!