A speed of 330 mph on just 400 horsepower is remarkable, even in test configuration. The 550 hp engine could have offset the inevitable weight increase of self-sealing tanks, armor etc but it suggests a viable lightweight fighter especially as original drawings show an armament of four 50 caliber guns. It might have worked in 1940 but not later.
The Mosquito was plywood with a balsa core held together with glue and was super tough. I was told by an older colleague that he saw an airfield fireman hit the fuselage with his axe after a crash and get the spike side in his head when the axe bounced off!
Wood laminate structure can make a stiff structure that’s lightweight but the mosquito was mostly just fast and was hard to intercept wood particularly lightweight woods used on this aircraft wouldn’t standup to gunfire very well even though it had steel armor to protect vital areas. Wood skins also allow for smooth surfaces which definitely helps with speed
The Germans were impressed with the light, fast, effective and versatile Mosquito and wanted a Timber Terror of their own that "could be constructed in piano shops across the nation." Their Horten Ho 229 flying wing jet fighter was largely made of wood held together with glue mixed with charcoal intended to be radar-absorbing.
@@sejembalm Site me the evidence that the carbon in the paint was put there to absorb radar. That is a myth. Radar absorbing qualities were not considered.
Wood is a great material for making airplanes. Its strength to weight ratio is greater than that of steel. Its one downside is that it's isotropic, ie, its cross-grain strength is much less than its strength parallel to the grain. That problem is eliminated with plywood, which consists of laminated sheets with the orientation of the layers successively alternating by 90 degrees.
Imagine, something closer in size to a modern aerobatic plane dogfighting with bigger, slower, fighters. It would have been an interesting scenario if it ever panned out. Sad that it never made it. I guess even if the engines were ready in time, the handling issues would have required sorting before it was delivered to the frontlines, so it only had a slim chance, either way.
Shame really, this is such a cute plane. At least as a home defense fighter for low priority regions, like the northern and southern borders, this would have been a nice plane. It´s cheapness would have allowed it to be fielded in large quantity, thus also allowing for training a large number of pilots of which the best could potentially serve in the war, either this or the next one.
I forget which issue it was, but the Smithsonian Air and Space magazine once claimed to have the sole surviving XP-77 prototype on display. It was a very weird mistake.
They actually intended on getting it, but the second prototype had been left outside as a gate guard for 25 years, and by 1979.. There wasn’t much left to preserve of the wooden wonder. At least, that’s what my research tells me.
1:03 Research in Sweden during ww2 showed that people growing their own potatoes actually worsened the food shortage. People who had never grown potatoes before usually got lower yields than a farmer who was used to growing potatoes would with the same amounts of spuds planted. Although it was probably good for morale.
It was an interesting idea, but given that for strategic materials, the US was far less reliant on foreign sources meant the whole Bell XP-77 idea was not the best solution. I think the _Luftwaffe_ was glad the Miles M.20 didn't make it into service. the M.20, despite its fixed landing gear, was surprisingly fast and highly maneuverable, and it would have given _Luftwaffe_ bomber pilots a lot of problems during the Battle of Britain.
There's a saying that if it looks right it's good for flight and I'll say as someone who builds flying model craft, it looks right. Could definitely be a racer with a different package.
A formula racer is essentially all this airplane was. You can always built a fast vehicle around a given engine or weight restriction if doesn't have to be practical for anything other than just going as fast as it can for the installed engine power. This airplane was lame as a fighter, and as the video states it would only be useful if nothing else was available. Then again, even the countries that did have material shortages didn't design an airplane as useless as this one.
How does the comment that the airplane would be unarmored relate to the fact that the fuselage was made of plywood? The skin was not the armor for most fighters, which had separate armor plates in strategic places to protect the pilot, and sometimes other vital components. More rare is replacing the skin in strategic places with heavier gauge metal to armor that spot. If this airplane was to be unarmored the real reason must have been that it could not afford to afford the extra weight.
I've heard that wood does OK against armor piercing rounds, but high explosive is bad news. The luftwaffe used 20mm rounds with thin walls and a lot of explosive filler against partially-wooden Soviet aircraft. No armor for the pilot would have been crazy, even the Japanese had a plate behind the pilot by 44.
Driving along in your fuel tanker and this swoops down out of nowhere. Or your supply truck, boat or whatever. Any plane is a million times better than no plane.
@@Wasko1312 yeah but still, in an era of auto obturating fuel tanks and all metal framing planes this construction method would've freak out a bunch of pilots i think
Makes you wonder if these would sell as civilian racing aircraft 🤔 ... Like ok , wood will not look good for the safety officials but fiberglass could!
Ambrosini managed to do it with the SAI.207 - it broke 400mph. It also used an inline air-cooled engine, but one that worked a lot better than the Ranger did. It still had some severe problems, though.
I don't know, the xp-77, given its non strategic materials could have had a point on the civilian market, if they could have improved its safety, shifting from nails to screws... using a "laminated" fabric covering for extra strength, at the cost of the 2 .50 cals since it would be civilian... they could have had an aircraft that pilots would train in, fly, and such, before joining the army air corps. That returning pilots could buy and fly for "propaganda" etc.
If the idea had been more successful, it might have made a good export fighter for smaller foreign militaries desperate for anything with wings. And could have proven a benefit in some situations. Originally intended as home defense, the tiny fighter was never meant to be a high performer. However, had the engine been able to benefit from more development and iterations, we may have seen a 700+ hp varient which would certainly have helped the machine in performance. However, it probably would have been better to have based the fighter on the already proven Pratt & Whitney R-1340 series, with 600hp and weighing 930lbs, its a close comparison and had been in production since 1929(actually it is STILL in production!) and is the engine used in the T6 Texan trainer. Or you could step up slightly and use the R-1535 series. Which while heavier (900lbs-1100lbs vs the Ranger V-770 which came in at 730lbs-870lbs not including cooling system) was proven and had varients from 625hp up to 825hp. (P&W also managed to make an upgrade for this engine to 1200hp circa 1943 but that version never went into production as far as i can tell.) The radial would have been a better engine to base the design around simply based on moving the pilot forward and giving better visibility. The aircraft would have been much closer to the Curtiss-Wright CW-21 but lighter being made of wood and probably performing a bit better. Although the CW-21 did have some great flight characteristics even though it wasn't fast. But the R-1535 engine also would have provided allot more power for minimal increase in weight.
...thinking about a wooden fighter BEFORE WW2 was a good idea...and the US didn't need it, they had no shortage of e.g. aluminium... ...o.t.o.h. when Germany found out, they needed a wooden hi-performance fighter - the FW-154 - it was too late - and the glue-factories were bombed...!
I recall reading the mosquito as wooden airframe was somewhat radar invisible, wooden airframes probably fooled many early radar networks, I read Germany worked with radar absorbing paint, no signal back is good for the pilot, how to make a wooden engine hmmm
Correct me of im wrong but wasn't there a planned racer version of this plane...because by all means it had the right characteristics of one if only with a bigger engine
Take a look at Keith Riders R-6 "Eightball" plywood skin 1939 racer. WS 18', Lgt 19' or the 1938 Crosby CR-4 Racer. WS 16', lgt 21' empty wg 1540. Build of stressed steel. Powered by Menasco C6S-4. BUT designed to be powered by same 12-cyl Ranger V-770 engine. Also the Chester Special #2 1938 NAT Racers "Jeep" & "Goon"...plywood covered wings.
That's well within the capabilities of today's amateur-builders. It might cause a bit of a turf war at Oshkosh, though. (Warbird? Experimental? Amateur?)
@@parrotraiser6541 that’s true, I’ve always had an obsession over this plane, and would love to see a replica.. Preferably as authentic as possible, though another issue I’ve found is no cockpit photos.
Are there 400hp inverted straight sixes?? That sort of engine layout is what that cowling implies: main air intake off the centerline, heated air blowing out the opposite side rear cowling edge after passing over the cylinder fins.
The mosquito was a good night fighter and also a good recon plane ,a good light bomber/ attack plane but it wasn't a good general purpose daytime fighter . General purpose daytime Twin engine fighters with the notable exception of the P38 LIGHTENING tended to be bad in world war 2 .
Interesting airplane, dumb video. The guy dumps on wood and glue. Somebody ought to tell him about the Mosquito. He says 330 was slow. Not for an airplane of the era at sea level. Since the 770 they used was unblown, that means the plane was fastest at sea level. Assume a super charged engine with a critical altitude of 20K. The little thing should have gone 400 easy. The lack of vibration dampening engine mounts I have never understood. Obviously, even with an altitude engine, there was not going to be enough room for much gas or enough power to lift many bombs, so it would not have been capable of all the things the ones everyone remembers could do.
This plane was crappy it had many more problems than engine and all of the light weight emergency aircraft designs were duds. Also no a really bad aircraft is worse than nothing as it is a death trap for highly trained pilots you would be better off with fewer planes. it was also silly to imagine that the USA would run short of resources so a complete waste of time and money
That depends on how you define "light weight" - the Yak 3 was pretty light weight at the end of the war. The Arsenal VG-30 series of fighters also didn't seem very dud-esque.
A speed of 330 mph on just 400 horsepower is remarkable, even in test configuration. The 550 hp engine could have offset the inevitable weight increase of self-sealing tanks, armor etc but it suggests a viable lightweight fighter especially as original drawings show an armament of four 50 caliber guns. It might have worked in 1940 but not later.
Looking at the wing plan form, I'd think adding that additional weight might give her a higher wing loading and lose some manoeuvrability.
@@sabrekai8706 Adding weight without adding wing area always increases wing loading regardless of the planform.
@@gort8203 Yeah, should have said wing area.
Four .50's is nothing to be sneezed at. I don't care what year it is.
Yeah, if it was actually approved for service, I would see it doing pretty good as export fighters to 3rd world countries.
The Mosquito was plywood with a balsa core held together with glue and was super tough. I was told by an older colleague that he saw an airfield fireman hit the fuselage with his axe after a crash and get the spike side in his head when the axe bounced off!
When they sent the Mosquitos and Hornets to the tropics and North Africa they didn't stay stuck quite so well...
Wood laminate structure can make a stiff structure that’s lightweight but the mosquito was mostly just fast and was hard to intercept wood particularly lightweight woods used on this aircraft wouldn’t standup to gunfire very well even though it had steel armor to protect vital areas. Wood skins also allow for smooth surfaces which definitely helps with speed
The Germans were impressed with the light, fast, effective and versatile Mosquito and wanted a Timber Terror of their own that "could be constructed in piano shops across the nation." Their Horten Ho 229 flying wing jet fighter was largely made of wood held together with glue mixed with charcoal intended to be radar-absorbing.
@@sejembalm
Site me the evidence that the carbon in the paint was put there to absorb radar.
That is a myth. Radar absorbing qualities were not considered.
@@sejembalm The Horten was not meant to be radar absorbing at all. The engineers who later claimed it were doing it simply for money, which failed.
Regardless of the failure it is a remarkable aircraft.
Wood is a great material for making airplanes. Its strength to weight ratio is greater than that of steel. Its one downside is that it's isotropic, ie, its cross-grain strength is much less than its strength parallel to the grain. That problem is eliminated with plywood, which consists of laminated sheets with the orientation of the layers successively alternating by 90 degrees.
Imagine, something closer in size to a modern aerobatic plane dogfighting with bigger, slower, fighters. It would have been an interesting scenario if it ever panned out. Sad that it never made it. I guess even if the engines were ready in time, the handling issues would have required sorting before it was delivered to the frontlines, so it only had a slim chance, either way.
Shame really, this is such a cute plane.
At least as a home defense fighter for low priority regions, like the northern and southern borders, this would have been a nice plane.
It´s cheapness would have allowed it to be fielded in large quantity, thus also allowing for training a large number of pilots of which the best could potentially serve in the war, either this or the next one.
Woodstang would’ve been a good nickname for the plane.
Or a "splinter"
I’ve honestly never heard of this funny little aircraft. Thank you for doing this research on a very unique machine.
I forget which issue it was, but the Smithsonian Air and Space magazine once claimed to have the sole surviving XP-77 prototype on display. It was a very weird mistake.
They actually intended on getting it, but the second prototype had been left outside as a gate guard for 25 years, and by 1979.. There wasn’t much left to preserve of the wooden wonder. At least, that’s what my research tells me.
Beautiful little plane for today. I like it😊
I wonder if a replica could be constructed?
Typical video about WW2 prototype planes: "This plane would've been amazing, but its engine got delayed, dooming it to a failure."
Anyone have any plans or loftings? I bet that'd be a pretty fun Experimental build.
1:03 Research in Sweden during ww2 showed that people growing their own potatoes actually worsened the food shortage. People who had never grown potatoes before usually got lower yields than a farmer who was used to growing potatoes would with the same amounts of spuds planted. Although it was probably good for morale.
And if you believe that you'll believe anything. 99.9% of statistics are made up.
It was an interesting idea, but given that for strategic materials, the US was far less reliant on foreign sources meant the whole Bell XP-77 idea was not the best solution.
I think the _Luftwaffe_ was glad the Miles M.20 didn't make it into service. the M.20, despite its fixed landing gear, was surprisingly fast and highly maneuverable, and it would have given _Luftwaffe_ bomber pilots a lot of problems during the Battle of Britain.
Curtiss-Wright CW-21 Demon was also discarded by the US. That was a same kind of fighter but at least it could be succesful.
Why not get a copy of the plans and build one. Maybe drop in a small turbo prop for the speed. It will make a good race plane.
There's a saying that if it looks right it's good for flight and I'll say as someone who builds flying model craft, it looks right. Could definitely be a racer with a different package.
A formula racer is essentially all this airplane was. You can always built a fast vehicle around a given engine or weight restriction if doesn't have to be practical for anything other than just going as fast as it can for the installed engine power. This airplane was lame as a fighter, and as the video states it would only be useful if nothing else was available. Then again, even the countries that did have material shortages didn't design an airplane as useless as this one.
@@gort8203 What about the German natter?
@@tomtoss2463 What about it? I don't see how that is related to this topic.
@@gort8203 The natter was a German ww2 wood rocket plane. The HE 1
I would like to see one if there were prints for it
Great video.
Too much was expected of that design. US Army & Navy were notorious for their unrealistic specifications early in the war.
How does the comment that the airplane would be unarmored relate to the fact that the fuselage was made of plywood? The skin was not the armor for most fighters, which had separate armor plates in strategic places to protect the pilot, and sometimes other vital components. More rare is replacing the skin in strategic places with heavier gauge metal to armor that spot. If this airplane was to be unarmored the real reason must have been that it could not afford to afford the extra weight.
I've heard that wood does OK against armor piercing rounds, but high explosive is bad news. The luftwaffe used 20mm rounds with thin walls and a lot of explosive filler against partially-wooden Soviet aircraft.
No armor for the pilot would have been crazy, even the Japanese had a plate behind the pilot by 44.
Driving along in your fuel tanker and this swoops down out of nowhere. Or your supply truck, boat or whatever. Any plane is a million times better than no plane.
This would be an interesting guerrilla CAS today, a few updates and what do you know
The updates would have to be significant. As is, it can't carry much and the pilot can't see much.
can you imagine the stress of getting shot at in a plywood plane with no armor ? Gruesome
not, a de havilland mosquito was constructed like that. its speed was it strong point.
@@Wasko1312 yeah but still, in an era of auto obturating fuel tanks and all metal framing planes this construction method would've freak out a bunch of pilots i think
Pretty much the case for the majority in world war 1... The average pilot survival was rated at 3 weeks if I remember it right
The sheet metal other aircraft were built with are no more resistant to bullet or cannon impacts than wood.
Quite a few high performance and highly regarded aircraft were wood... Mosquito, vampire, mig, lavochkin, stuka....
All of the major participants in WWII tried to make wooden fighters, the only true success was the famous DeHaviland Mosquito.
In other Words, even a Stuka with 37mm Cannon pods could fly circles around this thing!
Makes you wonder if these would sell as civilian racing aircraft 🤔 ... Like ok , wood will not look good for the safety officials but fiberglass could!
I wonder if something like this as a really cheap drone would be feasible
I don’t see why not. After all no one worries about losing a drone.
Ambrosini managed to do it with the SAI.207 - it broke 400mph. It also used an inline air-cooled engine, but one that worked a lot better than the Ranger did. It still had some severe problems, though.
This plane would have been great to have in the Philippines during the early war. We had no CAP during the Japanese invasion.
I think it would make a good fighter trainer.
"A PT6, a PT6 . . my Kingdom for a PT6!" - History's timing is so cruel to designers : )
I don't know, the xp-77, given its non strategic materials could have had a point on the civilian market, if they could have improved its safety, shifting from nails to screws... using a "laminated" fabric covering for extra strength, at the cost of the 2 .50 cals since it would be civilian...
they could have had an aircraft that pilots would train in, fly, and such, before joining the army air corps. That returning pilots could buy and fly for "propaganda" etc.
If the idea had been more successful, it might have made a good export fighter for smaller foreign militaries desperate for anything with wings. And could have proven a benefit in some situations. Originally intended as home defense, the tiny fighter was never meant to be a high performer. However, had the engine been able to benefit from more development and iterations, we may have seen a 700+ hp varient which would certainly have helped the machine in performance. However, it probably would have been better to have based the fighter on the already proven Pratt & Whitney R-1340 series, with 600hp and weighing 930lbs, its a close comparison and had been in production since 1929(actually it is STILL in production!) and is the engine used in the T6 Texan trainer. Or you could step up slightly and use the R-1535 series. Which while heavier (900lbs-1100lbs vs the Ranger V-770 which came in at 730lbs-870lbs not including cooling system) was proven and had varients from 625hp up to 825hp. (P&W also managed to make an upgrade for this engine to 1200hp circa 1943 but that version never went into production as far as i can tell.) The radial would have been a better engine to base the design around simply based on moving the pilot forward and giving better visibility. The aircraft would have been much closer to the Curtiss-Wright CW-21 but lighter being made of wood and probably performing a bit better. Although the CW-21 did have some great flight characteristics even though it wasn't fast. But the R-1535 engine also would have provided allot more power for minimal increase in weight.
...thinking about a wooden fighter BEFORE WW2 was a good idea...and the US didn't need it, they had no shortage of e.g. aluminium...
...o.t.o.h. when Germany found out, they needed a wooden hi-performance fighter - the FW-154 - it was too late - and the glue-factories were bombed...!
I recall reading the mosquito as wooden airframe was somewhat radar invisible, wooden airframes probably fooled many early radar networks, I read Germany worked with radar absorbing paint, no signal back is good for the pilot, how to make a wooden engine hmmm
I think one serious issue the XP-77 would have had is combat survivability. I doubt it could have survived anything but minimal battle damage.
Explosive shells used to pass right through the Mosquito without detonating, because it was so soft...
Correct me of im wrong but wasn't there a planned racer version of this plane...because by all means it had the right characteristics of one if only with a bigger engine
Take a look at Keith Riders R-6 "Eightball" plywood skin 1939 racer. WS 18', Lgt 19'
or the 1938 Crosby CR-4 Racer. WS 16', lgt 21' empty wg 1540. Build of stressed steel.
Powered by Menasco C6S-4. BUT designed to be powered by same 12-cyl Ranger V-770 engine.
Also the Chester Special #2 1938 NAT Racers "Jeep" & "Goon"...plywood covered wings.
Would be interesting to know, if anyone has tried to make air worthy flying replica of this aircraft??
Oh no, the French "Light Fighter" idea crossed the Atlantic! Done in by a failed engine design...again.
never aware its from wood, it looks so shiny 😅
Wdym the king cobra and the jetfighter were developed at the same time.
Pilot could NOT "eject"! No ejection seats yet, know-it-all! I suggest the pilot bailed out.
I guess you could call the XP-77 "the flying contingency plan"
so, wait, that could've been the birth of Ikea? )))
Narrátor is a singer!😂
I want one
3:04 fuck, that looks sketchy
Please check your dimensions on the 109 and the Zero. No way the Zero is 7 feet longer than the 109. Otherwise good video on this aircraft.
When does he say that? 3:52 has the zero 5 inches longer than the 109
@@user-fo2xx3qh2b Ah bugger, must be getting senile. read the span as the length. My bad.
@@sabrekai8706 all good
The American mosquito? … oh what could have been.
That's well within the capabilities of today's amateur-builders. It might cause a bit of a turf war at Oshkosh, though. (Warbird? Experimental? Amateur?)
Problem comes with the engine, to what I gather the V770 is exceptionally rare.
@@Theover4000 I was assumng a modern motor, though an inverted-V might be hard to find.
@@parrotraiser6541 that’s true, I’ve always had an obsession over this plane, and would love to see a replica.. Preferably as authentic as possible, though another issue I’ve found is no cockpit photos.
Are there 400hp inverted straight sixes?? That sort of engine layout is what that cowling implies: main air intake off the centerline, heated air blowing out the opposite side rear cowling edge after passing over the cylinder fins.
@@w.reidripley1968 It's an inverted V12, Ranger V-770 is a weird engine, especially for US usage.
No oil no army or Air Force…..charging stations on the battlefield….of course….silly me
Then there was the large wooden plane.. British.... you know.. the Mossie (mosquito)
The Mosquito was wood. Good bird. Why not just put American engines on a known design?
Military procurement never worked in that way. If it had, just imagine the amount of tax payer money they could have saved 😳
The mosquito was a good night fighter and also a good recon plane ,a good light bomber/ attack plane but it wasn't a good general purpose daytime fighter . General purpose daytime Twin engine fighters with the notable exception of the P38 LIGHTENING tended to be bad in world war 2 .
I'm sorry, but ... *not* a good looking airplane.
(Would have been interesting to see it with a "real' engine, though)...
Interesting airplane, dumb video. The guy dumps on wood and glue. Somebody ought to tell him about the Mosquito. He says 330 was slow. Not for an airplane of the era at sea level. Since the 770 they used was unblown, that means the plane was fastest at sea level. Assume a super charged engine with a critical altitude of 20K. The little thing should have gone 400 easy. The lack of vibration dampening engine mounts I have never understood. Obviously, even with an altitude engine, there was not going to be enough room for much gas or enough power to lift many bombs, so it would not have been capable of all the things the ones everyone remembers could do.
Lol, waste fats to nitroglyerine ;-)
Germany: "Disgusting"
Japan: "Hmm this looks nice..."
This plane was crappy it had many more problems than engine and all of the light weight emergency aircraft designs were duds. Also no a really bad aircraft is worse than nothing as it is a death trap for highly trained pilots you would be better off with fewer planes. it was also silly to imagine that the USA would run short of resources so a complete waste of time and money
That depends on how you define "light weight" - the Yak 3 was pretty light weight at the end of the war. The Arsenal VG-30 series of fighters also didn't seem very dud-esque.