Go to ground.news/found to stay up to date on all sides of breaking news. Check it out for free or subscribe for 30% off unlimited access before March 20 ALSO Doing some flight reviews on my Instagram: instagram.com/njcummins/ Follow me now :)
You mentioned German and US jet fighters but completely ignored the British ones, especially considering that the US P80 used the British De Haviland Goblin engine!
This was actually a good design. 6000lbs total weight is unbelievable compared 2 it's size. Plus it would've been the 1st production jet airliner. But with the Coment and a little later the 707 being larger with a higher passenger capacity it would've been quickly over taken it in sales. So it's best that it never went into production. A wise choice.
@@comradedog4075 yeah, I mean, for example, the Me 262 at least just a fighter and the engines are on the wings so it can be damaged "safely" a.k.a. without major problems to the mainframe (at max the wings would break, away from the pilot). This plane is meant to be a commercial airliner. And the engines are also positioned upwards, so landing on them makes the plane nosedive which is not the best. And these problems are just the tip of the iceberg. If one engine (for some reason) has a catastrophic failure it WILL most likely damage the crew compartment and/or the passengers. On a wing it's okay, you turn it off and continue onward. On these kind of planes there is a chance to the damaged engine also damages the other one and there are no detaching capabilities or half thrust. If one engine explodes, the plane will break in half.
I imagine that would have been quite “exciting”, having two large spinning jet engines grind themselves flat directly underneath the feet of the flight crew. I hope the plans were to have reinforced floors. Nothing like pieces of sheared turbine piercing the deck during an emergency landing to add a little spice to the situation.
The engine naime "Nene" is not pronounced "Nay Nay". It's pronounced "Neen". Rolls Royce have a tradition of calling their jet engines after British rivers Conway, Tay, Trent, Spey etc.
I think it would have worked and flown very efficiently, the designers thought out of the box. Just looking at it in this clip, the engineers must have located the fuel tanks in that free space between the two engines, thus leaving the wings lighter. So, they would have added more strenghth there to withstand the higher speed. And about the landing gear, they probably had a manual pump, one located below the flight deck and one or two inbetween the wings, in the free space. Other good ideas I like about this concept are that the controls for the engines, cables and levers would travel short distances from the cockpit to the engines.
It can be beneficial to move weight to the wings since that is the source of lift during flight. For example, fighters tend to locate drop tanks half way down the wing.
I could also imagine that it would be easier to replace an engine or remove it for repair. The Comet had the engines buried in the wings. It looks like if one needed to remove or replace one they would have to remove the wing or at least detach the skin. There's a reason why a lot of modern jet airliners like the 737 or A320 have the engines mounted underneath the wing.
@@JWQweqOPDH Yes, carrying the weight in the wings removes the load of that weight from the wingroots. But, I imagine they'd have to carry fuel in both the space between the engines AND the wings if they wanted any useful range out of the design burdened with those first generation jet engines.
It would not be a good idea to locate the fuel tanks between the engines. In order to maintain the center of gravity within given limitations, the fuel tanks must be placed close to the center of gravity. Having fuel tanks in the wings is a good solution, as the weight of the fuel will reduce the bending moments between the wings and the fuselage. At 0:43 you see the text "Reservoirs a carburant contenant au total 4000 L" next to the wing. That's the fuel.
I also think it's not the greatest idea to put the fuel adjacent to 2 jet engines fuel has been used as coolant in many jets, but the tanks never rest next to the combustion chambers.
In 2:06 you mentioned that at the end of WWII, jet aircraft was severely limited to German designs and emerging American aircraft but completely dismissed Great Britain’s Gloster Meteor!
Yea cause the Meteor sucked and it was late to the party and thus... quite lame. (sorry you opened the door i had to) 🤣 That comment was harsh but true.
@@aurorajones8481 Utter twaddle, so I will put you right - Meteors took part in the European theatre, so were not late and they were exported in huge numbers after the war, so did not 'suck' . Also UK jet engines were more advanced than Germany's because of metallurgical knowledge and advances. The German JuMo and BMWs etc had usages in just hours and a few sorties. That is why the US early jet planes used UK engines, as indeed did the Russians, they actually bought them, Nenes and Derwents for the MiG-15. The USAF still do so eg look at the B-52 re-engining project.. Also, more twaddle from you, what US jet took part in WW2?
@@aurorajones8481 hardly lame. It held the world airspeed record for a while and actually saw combat service, unlike the only US aircraft with jet engines; The Lockheed Shooting Star. Also entering RAF service from 1946.
@@aurorajones8481 the Meteor sucked so much it set altitude, speed and endurance records. The airframe was better thought out than anything the germans had (like actually having air brakes). The only jet to jet encounter over Europe was a squadron of Meteors chasing off an Arado. Jet plane development was so fast post-war that anything 1946 was obsolete before it left the drawing board (jets at the front was never going to work, they did not understand jets). But by the time the Meteor got to Korea it was already obsolete. The Canberra which started development 1944 was a very different matter, going through many design changes to keep up with new tech, entering service 1951 and retired from RAF 2006. NASA still has a couple of Canberras in service. The Comet also began design 1944 and prototype flown 1949. Metal fatigue was not well understood (by anyone) at the time so stress cracks formed around the square windows which were a last minute change to the round porthole design, that got fixed. The last Comet retired 1997 but the coastal patrol Nimrod persisted to 2011.
Great video. I hadn't heard of the F.26. Nene is pronounced "Neen" (or Nen in some parts of England) btw. Rolls Royce named their jets after UK rivers.
I didnt either, and I was Not expecting it to be Fokker, I was banking on it being a DC-3 with twin "RR NayNays" strapped under it. 😄 never heard it said like that, and it gave me a chuckle.
I got that wrong for years. I grew up in Hawaii where the state bird is a native flightless goose called the Nene. In Hawaiian, it IS pronounced Nay-Nay!
Thanks,as a little Yank kid I had aviation books from the UK.I instinctually knew what Rolls Royce Avon was named after.Nene had me baffled,though,hadn't heard of that river.Wonder if it's any coincidence that some US TSA officers are named Sha Nay Nay.
Groundnews, AllSides, great ways to see the news as is and not as is delivered :) What a gorgeous design. It's so simple and perfect in an original way. I love it.
Damn, pumping out so many amazing videos, you are just awesome. You sometimes should think about making a video of an alternate timeline where some of the designs you showed us here came to be, and what kind of amazing aircraft this would have produced in our alternate present.
PilotPhotog mentioned your channel to me. Despite decades of following aviation history. This was totally news to me. I'm looking forward to explore your channel and seeing new content.
Images of the Paris Air Show, Livery, Concept Art and scale model were taken from International Resin Modellers Association: Do check them out they do great work! internationalresinmodellers.com/articles_19_fokker_f26_phantom
glad you noticed that as well, was just about to comment on that, also the fact that the Americans would not of had a jet if it was not for the British supplying them with the jet engine
Germans or Soviets wouldn't either if the Germans hadn't bought engine designs and the Soviets hadn't stole em! The US' first jet used American engines,adapted from the English engine designs. The P-56 Aerocomet or something like that. Then the P-80,which had a whole American engine design.
@@liamjackson6930 Bullshit. Westinghouse, Lockheed, Allison and GE were all designing their own engines before we got the Whittle engine. It's not a big leap from a steam turbine to a gas turbine, merely combusters and metallurgy.
@@Mishn0 the ease with which metallurgical and combustor problems may be solved explains why Frank Whittle was able to make a working jet engine so quickly. Oh, hang on a minute that probably explains the ease with which US manufacturers were able to build theirs.
@@andrewallen9993 That and we had been building turbo-superchargers for more than a decade. It's a tiny leap from a turbo-supercharger to a turbojet engine. The reason it took as long as it did was bureaucratic inertia. They thought they weren't needed. Same thing in Britain, the RAF wasn't interested until they found out that the Germans were working on them. Only then did Whittle get any money.
The plane image is in French, quite interesting indeed. You should make the story of the Avro Canada Jetliner II which flew one month after the Comet and proved that regional airplanes could exist but Canada did not see it this way as nobody would be crazy enough to fly jet airplanes.
So far as i remember the avro lancastrian could be the first jetliner. It was a modified for passengers lancaster with two piston engines and two jet engines. UK Aircraft Explored has a good video about this plane. Would be nice to hear what your meaning abot this hybrid plane.
There was only ever one Lancastrian so modified - the others all had the original four Merlins. There were also variants of Vickers Viscount and Viking that were given turbojets, but they were one-offs for research as well.
Well, if one burst, you probably wouldn't care about the center of thrust, because the fuselage would be shredded and all the passengers would be hamburger meat.
I like this design. It would have made a great lear jet. It had great potential. I also like the British design. It too is a beautiful aircraft. It is too bad it had a problem in the stress points around the center, or wings. The folker reminds me of a D C 3 with jets strapped under the belly. Thanks for sharing..
The Comet failures actually started at the corner of an antenna port "window" on the roof just behind the cockpit, not "the windows" as the popular myth has it. Though Comet's passenger window shapes were changed as a precaution once the cause was discovered, they were probably acceptably safe all along.
There were actually some real airplanes built and flown with this sort of layout. A lot of early Russian fighter jets for example; such as the Yak 15, Yak 23, Sukhoi Su-15 (1949), Mig 9, and La-152. The Bell X-5 is another good example, based on the not-quite-finished Me P.1101. The Douglas F3D is another.
As a (retired) aeronautical engineer I can see that the Fokker engineers went for airframe stability and engine serviceability when designing the engines position. Personally, however, I have strong reservations because of FOD at take-off. Remember the Concorde crash at take-off from CDG on 7/25/2000 and which "sealed" the fate of the aircraft?
With the forward landing gear behind the engine air intakes and the main gear far behind and off to either side, there wouldn't have been any problems with the landing gear kicking up stuff or a tire failure being ingested by the engines. While the low intakes are more likely to suck in junk especially during initial roll out during high power take off settings, at that time it would be no worse than what existing jet fighters were dealing with. So as one other person commented, and just like the military had already started doing at that time, civilian airports would have to keep their runways and taxiways cleaner that with prop planes. As an aside, when the 737 was re-engined with larger engines and to avoid replace the landing gear with much higher and heavier units, the bottom of those huge intakes were designed flat because they were so low to the runway. To minimize sucking things up, bottom cowl-mounted jets of air bled off from the engine, blast the ground in front of the intake to blow aside anything in the engine's path when the aircraft is moving on the taxi ways, taking off or after landing.
Requesting videos on the following: -switchblade aircraft designs such as the FA-37 Talon from the ‘05 movie “Stealth” or the X-02 Wyvern from the Ace Combat franchise (the concept, not the actual fighters I mentioned) -Super Tomcat-21 and ASF-14 -the NATF program as a whole -early ATF proposals -Sea Apache -F-20 Tigershark -Bae SABA -Lockheed Martin’s Advanced Technology Bomber proposal -Northrop’s proposal for what would become the F-117 Nighthawk -Interstate TDR
The intakes are forward enough anything thrown up by the wheels would miss but FOD would be a problem. Sell jet airliners was a hard sell, even Boeing had trouble until the 1st airline placed an order. Then everyone jumped on board. With so few seats this would have made a good business jet but that market hadn't started yet
Great video dude. Such a cool looking aircraft. Tho I think you had a typo in your script, Anthony Fokker passed away in December 23rd, 1939 in New York City, not 1936. Love the video tho.
In my opinion, the big reason this airplane did not get developed was because a twin jet with only an 18 passenger capacity and minimal cargo/luggage capacity would not be profitable to operate in passenger service. And it was a bit too early to be successfully marketed as a business jet. Most other aspects of this airplane were technically feasible. The chin mounted engines while odd looking, were not too much of an issue. The nose wheel was actually behind the jet air intakes and were adequate for jets of that time. A number of other jets from that time frame had inlets close to the ground like this one. Remember, these engines were only providing thrust in the 2,000 lb to 6,000 lb range, so their huge demand for air was much less than later engines.
18 passengers with 1000 mile range, the DC-3 could seat 12 more and had an additional 500 mile on the range. A faster flight time for that 1000 miles was the only selling point
@@rod.h8064 true that. And their are still DC-3 airplanes flying around in revenue service and making money for their operators. Some have even been converted to turbine engines (Turboprop, Basler DC3 conversions).
The 737 has it's engines so close to the ground that they had to modify the engines and nacelles with a flat-bottom profile to give clearance. Don't even talk about the 737MAX!
@@EuroScot2023 yes, starting with the 737-300 series with the high bypass CFM engines, they reshaped the engine cowlings and repackaged the accessory drives to move them to the sides of the engines instead of underneath. And in the end, it worked just fine. The bigger LEAP engines on the MAX series were bigger and more powerful and as a result, they were moved forward and mounted a bit higher. But agin, they worked just fine, but the wing and engine changes did change the way the plane flew and handled a bit so it no longer flew quite the same as the earlier models. The plane worked just fine. In fact, it actually had better performance. But it’s flight performance was enough different, it would have required additional training and certifications to transition to. And Boeing wanted to keep the same type certificate, so they came up with the MCAS system to make the plane fly just like the previous generation. And did not tell the pilots. They succeeded in that respect. But they screwed up the design and function of the MCAS system, not the 737 MAX itself. They made a critical design error that eliminated the dual angle of attack sensor redundancy for the data input, and when the critical sensor failed, it triggered a series of inputs and actions by the MCAS system which caused the airplane to prevent the pilots from properly controlling the aircraft that then lead to the crash of 2 fully loaded planes. And on top of that, Boeing decided to try and pass the cause onto the pilots flying the plane instead of going opps, we got a problem, let’s fix it. That part was all on Boeing management. Not the basic 737-MAX plane design. And then the consequences of Boeing’s actions resulted in the loss of certifications and grounding of the airplane for over two years.
Anthony Fokker, though Dutch, had worked for Hugo Junkers in WW1 and ended up “stealing” Junkers aerodynamic technology. This was the thick airfoil that made the monoplane possible but had a much higher lift to drag ratio that gave the German billers such as the Fokker Triplane, Fokker DVIII superior climb rates to allied aircraft despite far weaker engines.
The first time I see that concept (to be honest I didn't lose much). In general, it is like a crisscross between Curtiss Wright's Commando fuselage and some German war concepts, particularly Messerschmidt.
Mr. Fokker was one of the best man who came from the Dutch East Indies. The pride of the colony and the overall of The Royal Kingdom of The Netherlands.
I thought he was German until the rise of the Nazis, when he moved to the Netherlands (only to have the Netherlands occupied by the aforementioned Nazis).
Wow! I never knew this aircraft was ever conceived until I saw this video. It looks cool. And I’d much rather be in that thing if it had to make a water ditch landing, rather than a typical jet, with engines slung underneath the wings . But man ol man, if those engines ever blew up, everybody is toast with the engines being right up against the fuselage.
similar thing happened to the Dutch' southern neighbours, when the Belgian Renard 35 first flew as an airliner with pressurized cabin in 1935, months before the Boeing 307.
@@rayjames6096 ah yes, design started in 1935, hence the 35 in the name. it still flew earlier than the 307, but it crashed due to pilot's error, he was not cleared to take her off the ground when he did... a recurring thing with renard's prototypes, on two occasions a pilot bailed from his prototypes (R32 and the Epervier) and gave ridiculous reasons why, losing the prototypes. in the case of the epervier in 1929 there's suspicion the pilot (De Smet) was paid by rivalling companies to do that...
@@roelantverhoeven371 I'm sure your insinuating with this conspiracy tale the rival company that paid this pilot to crash the plane he was piloting was Boeing so it could be the first manufacturer with a pressurized cabin...you hear the same conspiracy nonsense from the British with the TSR-2.
I recall a documentary on a jet-powered passenger plan built in Canada by either deHavilland or Avro-Canada. It would be nice to see your take on that.
Haha, as a native 🇧🇪 speaker of the Dutch language, the word 'vliegtuigontwikkeling' is very easy to pronounce. But i admit it must be a monstruous challenge for people who don't know Dutch...
What a fabulous video. All the imagery had me entranced and wishing that the plan had come to fruition. I don't think a gear up landing would have been a very happy experience, though. 😮
With the greatest respect and appreciation of your fine work, aircraft designations are generally pronounced as individual letters, not words. ME-262 is pronounced as Emm Eee two six two, not Me two six two. Take it for what you will. Thank you for the variety of information you bring to our screens.
OMG, I'm a cloggy , Fokker enthousiast and even used to work for a company related to Fokker, however i had never heard of the F26-Phantom. Ok, at the time as an airliner it would indeed have been a disaster, but as a proof of concept it surely would have kicked ass. There alwas was an issue for which you have to understand Dutch culture, and that's the behavoure of wanting to be a big Cadilac but still behave like Calimero. Almost literly translated: "Act normal, than you're deranged enough" Even with the Fokker 50,60,70,100 line if the company would sell one aircraft they would feel like they were Boeing. After the company ceased production i still had airlines that intended to buy multiple Fokker-100 not knowing the company ended up in bankruptcy (one of many). To bad, Fokker Aircraft made real nice products and although the extended F27, F28 line (after modernization known as Fokker-50 and Fokker-100) by now surely performance and therefore economy wise would be outdated there was realy the knowhow to design excelent new aircraft (althoug the plan to compete with B737 and A320 would sound a bit over ambitious).
I also worked with a Fokker partner company, and I remember being told that the problem was that the aircraft was built with DMarks, but sold in US $ , and the exchange rate killed it.
@@jimff5 Hmmm Jim, it may be for the -100 but in General the US marked would not realy be interesting in Fokker Aircraft (to slow, to expensive, Not make in USA) Same for the UK that at the time was verry well capable to design and build equivialent aircraft like he BAC111 (almost a copy of the F28) and the Hereald (hardly to differ from the F27) and many other nice designs. However the rest of the world even today would be interested.,
As a real aeronautical engineer I have a few criticisms, it maximizes: 1. interference drag 2. wing bending by not having engine mass on wings, which offers better span loading, critical for high g load conditions. Also obviously why have jet engines and no wing sweep?
On your point 2 - What do you call an aircraft that endures really high g load conditions? A fighter. Where are the engines on every fighter for the past 70 years? Um! Finally. Why have jet engines and no wing sweep? Multiple reasons - think of an A10 Thunderbolt 2.
"...and emerging American aircraft that had only seen limited action." Well, I guess we should probably ignore not only the German Arado 234, but we should especially ignore the Gloster Meteor designed & built in Britain -- you know, the only Allied jet fighter to see combat action in WWII. Aside from that, this was a really interesting video. I don't think the F-26 would have had *that* major an impact -- even the Comet 1 had a slightly longer range & greater capacity, and the Boeing 707 had a range that made the Comet look like a puddle-jumper. Shorter-range jets obviously did come into their own (making their presence known starting with France's Caravelle) but again they had greater range and, more importantly, greater payload. The F-26 would likely have become an interesting footnote as the first commercial jet, hopefully with less tragedy than the Comet, but its short range, limited capacity, and huge jet intakes perfectly positioned to suck up every loose in their path I think it's unlikely that it would have changed the overall course of commercial jet aviation.
Really enjoyed this video. I didn't know about this aircraft and am very grateful for the information. Some little inaccuracies in the script are mentioned below . What is your fact checking prosess?
Go to ground.news/found to stay up to date on all sides of breaking news. Check it out for free or subscribe for 30% off unlimited access before March 20
ALSO
Doing some flight reviews on my Instagram: instagram.com/njcummins/
Follow me now :)
You mentioned German and US jet fighters but completely ignored the British ones, especially considering that the US P80 used the British De Haviland Goblin engine!
How about the MBB Lampyridae?
Hi! Can you do a vid on the Tu-244 pls :)
Thank you for sharing, happy to support! For anyone interested, check out the link above and let us know if you have any questions.
great vid but please don't call a nene a néné ever again 🤣
Ah, nothing like seeing Found & Explained pop up in my feed, see the thumbnail, and think to myself "what the actual hell is THAT?"
I really enjoy finding a plane no one has ever heard of every
@@FoundAndExplained you and Ed Nash should do a collab video
I legitimately said out loud when I saw this "oh god what the fuck is that"
This was actually a good design. 6000lbs total weight is unbelievable compared 2 it's size. Plus it would've been the 1st production jet airliner. But with the Coment and a little later the 707 being larger with a higher passenger capacity it would've been quickly over taken it in sales. So it's best that it never went into production. A wise choice.
Really? Omg. Omg omg. Poor thumbnail😢😢😢
this plane looks a bit goofy but I think that gives it a nice charm
The F-26 Jet I think would have been a commercial failure but the F-27 Turboprop really was ingenious and a great success for the company.
Hey !!! If it looks like a duck and kwaks like a duck, it's probarbly a Fokker !
It would look perfect in the Fallout universe.
Your a anti-furry!
Now this plane is what I like to call a "jet sitting" aircraft. Because if the landing gears fail the plane would rest on its engines
Imagine having to belly land that thing after your landing gear fails to go down.
@@comradedog4075 yeah, I mean, for example, the Me 262 at least just a fighter and the engines are on the wings so it can be damaged "safely" a.k.a. without major problems to the mainframe (at max the wings would break, away from the pilot). This plane is meant to be a commercial airliner. And the engines are also positioned upwards, so landing on them makes the plane nosedive which is not the best. And these problems are just the tip of the iceberg. If one engine (for some reason) has a catastrophic failure it WILL most likely damage the crew compartment and/or the passengers. On a wing it's okay, you turn it off and continue onward. On these kind of planes there is a chance to the damaged engine also damages the other one and there are no detaching capabilities or half thrust. If one engine explodes, the plane will break in half.
Isn’t that true of most jetliners, other than those with engines mounted on the empennage?
@@jacksons1010 technically yes, but I meant to those planes which has their engine(s) close to or on the fuselage (and underneath)
I imagine that would have been quite “exciting”, having two large spinning jet engines grind themselves flat directly underneath the feet of the flight crew. I hope the plans were to have reinforced floors. Nothing like pieces of sheared turbine piercing the deck during an emergency landing to add a little spice to the situation.
The engine naime "Nene" is not pronounced "Nay Nay". It's pronounced "Neen". Rolls Royce have a tradition of calling their jet engines after British rivers Conway, Tay, Trent, Spey etc.
nay nay does sound funnier
Nene, pronounced "nay nay", refers to an endangered goose native to Hawaii.
Oh it's like "meme" again
Nay nay is my favourite may may
when you disapprove something, you will say nay nay...
I think it would have worked and flown very efficiently, the designers thought out of the box. Just looking at it in this clip, the engineers must have located the fuel tanks in that free space between the two engines, thus leaving the wings lighter. So, they would have added more strenghth there to withstand the higher speed. And about the landing gear, they probably had a manual pump, one located below the flight deck and one or two inbetween the wings, in the free space. Other good ideas I like about this concept are that the controls for the engines, cables and levers would travel short distances from the cockpit to the engines.
It can be beneficial to move weight to the wings since that is the source of lift during flight. For example, fighters tend to locate drop tanks half way down the wing.
I could also imagine that it would be easier to replace an engine or remove it for repair.
The Comet had the engines buried in the wings. It looks like if one needed to remove or replace one they would have to remove the wing or at least detach the skin. There's a reason why a lot of modern jet airliners like the 737 or A320 have the engines mounted underneath the wing.
@@JWQweqOPDH Yes, carrying the weight in the wings removes the load of that weight from the wingroots. But, I imagine they'd have to carry fuel in both the space between the engines AND the wings if they wanted any useful range out of the design burdened with those first generation jet engines.
It would not be a good idea to locate the fuel tanks between the engines. In order to maintain the center of gravity within given limitations, the fuel tanks must be placed close to the center of gravity. Having fuel tanks in the wings is a good solution, as the weight of the fuel will reduce the bending moments between the wings and the fuselage. At 0:43 you see the text "Reservoirs a carburant contenant au total 4000 L" next to the wing. That's the fuel.
I also think it's not the greatest idea to put the fuel adjacent to 2 jet engines fuel has been used as coolant in many jets, but the tanks never rest next to the combustion chambers.
In 2:06 you mentioned that at the end of WWII, jet aircraft was severely limited to German designs and emerging American aircraft but completely dismissed Great Britain’s Gloster Meteor!
Yea cause the Meteor sucked and it was late to the party and thus... quite lame. (sorry you opened the door i had to) 🤣 That comment was harsh but true.
@@aurorajones8481 Utter twaddle, so I will put you right - Meteors took part in the European theatre, so were not late and they were exported in huge numbers after the war, so did not 'suck' . Also UK jet engines were more advanced than Germany's because of metallurgical knowledge and advances. The German JuMo and BMWs etc had usages in just hours and a few sorties. That is why the US early jet planes used UK engines, as indeed did the Russians, they actually bought them, Nenes and Derwents for the MiG-15. The USAF still do so eg look at the B-52 re-engining project.. Also, more twaddle from you, what US jet took part in WW2?
@@aurorajones8481 hardly lame. It held the world airspeed record for a while and actually saw combat service, unlike the only US aircraft with jet engines; The Lockheed Shooting Star. Also entering RAF service from 1946.
Uh-oh, the Brittards are getting their feathers ruffled!
@@aurorajones8481 the Meteor sucked so much it set altitude, speed and endurance records. The airframe was better thought out than anything the germans had (like actually having air brakes). The only jet to jet encounter over Europe was a squadron of Meteors chasing off an Arado. Jet plane development was so fast post-war that anything 1946 was obsolete before it left the drawing board (jets at the front was never going to work, they did not understand jets). But by the time the Meteor got to Korea it was already obsolete. The Canberra which started development 1944 was a very different matter, going through many design changes to keep up with new tech, entering service 1951 and retired from RAF 2006. NASA still has a couple of Canberras in service. The Comet also began design 1944 and prototype flown 1949. Metal fatigue was not well understood (by anyone) at the time so stress cracks formed around the square windows which were a last minute change to the round porthole design, that got fixed. The last Comet retired 1997 but the coastal patrol Nimrod persisted to 2011.
I've been watching this channel since almost the start and the difference in animation is insane. Great work!
Great video. I hadn't heard of the F.26.
Nene is pronounced "Neen" (or Nen in some parts of England) btw. Rolls Royce named their jets after UK rivers.
I didnt either, and I was Not expecting it to be Fokker, I was banking on it being a DC-3 with twin "RR NayNays" strapped under it. 😄 never heard it said like that, and it gave me a chuckle.
I got that wrong for years. I grew up in Hawaii where the state bird is a native flightless goose called the Nene. In Hawaiian, it IS pronounced Nay-Nay!
FINALLY, ........a commentator who knows something about aviation. Thank you.
Thanks,as a little Yank kid I had aviation books from the UK.I instinctually knew what Rolls Royce Avon was named after.Nene had me baffled,though,hadn't heard of that river.Wonder if it's any coincidence that some US TSA officers are named Sha Nay Nay.
Nene, Welland, Trent, Avon and Spey. Probably a few others as well.
2:33 That MEA comet hit me with that nostalgia
Groundnews, AllSides, great ways to see the news as is and not as is delivered :)
What a gorgeous design. It's so simple and perfect in an original way. I love it.
Gorgeous fuselage . They made such beautiful things in the 50s. What a beautiful little Fokker
This sort of reminds me of the Avro Canada C102 jetliner. The jet that almost beat the comet
It did. The Comet was seriously flawed so doesn't count.
Yes, the actual Jetliner.
Cool jet design that even Howard Hughes was bonkers for. Then it was cut up, brilliant. 😑
The problem was Korea. We couldn't go fight and support the program at the time. Too much money. Sad
@@mikeholland1031 it could have had a storage hanger built for it, much like any other experimental plane.
Lovely plane. Great coverage and story telling.
from the side it looks like its a well endowed man, from the front it looks like a well endowed woman. And its a Fokker. Perfect!
Damn, pumping out so many amazing videos, you are just awesome.
You sometimes should think about making a video of an alternate timeline where some of the designs you showed us here came to be, and what kind of amazing aircraft this would have produced in our alternate present.
The music at the beginning is amazing!! It sounds so tropical! I remember this opening music from Cities Skylines Seenu
PilotPhotog mentioned your channel to me. Despite decades of following aviation history. This was totally news to me. I'm looking forward to explore your channel and seeing new content.
My favorite thing about this channel is the beginning of every video where I'm always like "wtf is that thing"
Images of the Paris Air Show, Livery, Concept Art and scale model were taken from International Resin Modellers Association: Do check them out they do great work!
internationalresinmodellers.com/articles_19_fokker_f26_phantom
It looks like a C-47 Dakota with some jet engines slapped on.
Actually more like a Curtis C-46 Commando.
@@JBofBrisbane haha, whups! That's what I was thinking, and was too confident to double check. So thanks for correcting me.
I really enjoyed watching that something I never new 🤙🏻🇬🇧
A great story with incredible graphics! Good Job, one and all!
Video starts at 4:30.
Wow! She's beautiful!
Never heard of this curious plane, thanks for this video !
Dang, the Phantom II lookin' sick!
They were also British jet aircraft at the time. Not just American and German.
glad you noticed that as well, was just about to comment on that, also the fact that the Americans would not of had a jet if it was not for the British supplying them with the jet engine
Germans or Soviets wouldn't either if the Germans hadn't bought engine designs and the Soviets hadn't stole em! The US' first jet used American engines,adapted from the English engine designs. The P-56 Aerocomet or something like that. Then the P-80,which had a whole American engine design.
@@liamjackson6930 Bullshit. Westinghouse, Lockheed, Allison and GE were all designing their own engines before we got the Whittle engine. It's not a big leap from a steam turbine to a gas turbine, merely combusters and metallurgy.
@@Mishn0 the ease with which metallurgical and combustor problems may be solved explains why Frank Whittle was able to make a working jet engine so quickly.
Oh, hang on a minute that probably explains the ease with which US manufacturers were able to build theirs.
@@andrewallen9993 That and we had been building turbo-superchargers for more than a decade. It's a tiny leap from a turbo-supercharger to a turbojet engine. The reason it took as long as it did was bureaucratic inertia. They thought they weren't needed. Same thing in Britain, the RAF wasn't interested until they found out that the Germans were working on them. Only then did Whittle get any money.
i would love to build and fly one of these now despite the apparent flaws- its still a looker of an aircraft =)
I love that design ‼️
Damn thing even got the windows right.
Fokke, always ahead
I suppose that's why it became "defunct" in 1996................?
I ❤❤❤ how it looks already 😊.
2:36 MEA's old livery was gorgeous
Rhis honestly looks really cool!
Never heard of it but then it's pretty obscure, thanks for the story.
The plane image is in French, quite interesting indeed. You should make the story of the Avro Canada Jetliner II which flew one month after the Comet and proved that regional airplanes could exist but Canada did not see it this way as nobody would be crazy enough to fly jet airplanes.
Awesome video thank you for the great content.
So far as i remember the avro lancastrian could be the first jetliner. It was a modified for passengers lancaster with two piston engines and two jet engines. UK Aircraft Explored has a good video about this plane.
Would be nice to hear what your meaning abot this hybrid plane.
Yes and the Gloster Pioneer first flew in May 1941.
There was only ever one Lancastrian so modified - the others all had the original four Merlins.
There were also variants of Vickers Viscount and Viking that were given turbojets, but they were one-offs for research as well.
@@JBofBrisbane MkII Lancasters had Bristol Hercules radial engines.
The design is sick
Not the 'me262'. The correct pronunciation is the EM EE 262 or Messerschmidt 262.. thanks for the video.
1:55 be me(dutch) and hearing this is a hard word surprised me
I made one of these in SimplePlanes. Never thought I would see it in a somewhat in-depth video on TH-cam
Thank you for sharing, happy to support! For anyone interested, check out the link in the description and let us know if you have any questions.
My 1st reaction was, it looks sort of like a C46 commando with jet engines strapped under it
My first thought also.
This engine placement has advantage: if one burst the center of thrust is still closer to center of gravity making it easier to control in failure
Well, if one burst, you probably wouldn't care about the center of thrust, because the fuselage would be shredded and all the passengers would be hamburger meat.
I like this design. It would have made a great lear jet. It had great potential. I also like the British design. It too is a beautiful aircraft. It is too bad it had a problem in the stress points around the center, or wings. The folker reminds me of a D C 3 with jets strapped under the belly. Thanks for sharing..
The Comet failures actually started at the corner of an antenna port "window" on the roof just behind the cockpit, not "the windows" as the popular myth has it. Though Comet's passenger window shapes were changed as a precaution once the cause was discovered, they were probably acceptably safe all along.
Wow totally surprizing. I thought we were seeing some jet turbines strapped under a Curtiss C-46 Commando.
Thanks...never before heard!
man thats one beautiful looking plane! i now have a new favourite concept plane
4:27 end of sponser
Uploaded 13min ago. I don't usually get these so early.
This plane looks like a literal interpretation of "riding the engine."
Back then it was about building seats around an engine rather than a plane
There were actually some real airplanes built and flown with this sort of layout.
A lot of early Russian fighter jets for example; such as the Yak 15, Yak 23, Sukhoi Su-15 (1949), Mig 9, and La-152.
The Bell X-5 is another good example, based on the not-quite-finished Me P.1101. The Douglas F3D is another.
As a (retired) aeronautical engineer I can see that the Fokker engineers went for airframe stability and engine serviceability when designing the engines position. Personally, however, I have strong reservations because of FOD at take-off. Remember the Concorde crash at take-off from CDG on 7/25/2000 and which "sealed" the fate of the aircraft?
With the forward landing gear behind the engine air intakes and the main gear far behind and off to either side, there wouldn't have been any problems with the landing gear kicking up stuff or a tire failure being ingested by the engines. While the low intakes are more likely to suck in junk especially during initial roll out during high power take off settings, at that time it would be no worse than what existing jet fighters were dealing with. So as one other person commented, and just like the military had already started doing at that time, civilian airports would have to keep their runways and taxiways cleaner that with prop planes.
As an aside, when the 737 was re-engined with larger engines and to avoid replace the landing gear with much higher and heavier units, the bottom of those huge intakes were designed flat because they were so low to the runway. To minimize sucking things up, bottom cowl-mounted jets of air bled off from the engine, blast the ground in front of the intake to blow aside anything in the engine's path when the aircraft is moving on the taxi ways, taking off or after landing.
Requesting videos on the following:
-switchblade aircraft designs such as the FA-37 Talon from the ‘05 movie “Stealth” or the X-02 Wyvern from the Ace Combat franchise (the concept, not the actual fighters I mentioned)
-Super Tomcat-21 and ASF-14
-the NATF program as a whole
-early ATF proposals
-Sea Apache
-F-20 Tigershark
-Bae SABA
-Lockheed Martin’s Advanced Technology Bomber proposal
-Northrop’s proposal for what would become the F-117 Nighthawk
-Interstate TDR
Are the engines really entirely behind the front wheels?
Because it kinda looks more like the wheels would be between the intakes.
The intakes are forward enough anything thrown up by the wheels would miss but FOD would be a problem.
Sell jet airliners was a hard sell, even Boeing had trouble until the 1st airline placed an order. Then everyone jumped on board.
With so few seats this would have made a good business jet but that market hadn't started yet
Great video dude. Such a cool looking aircraft. Tho I think you had a typo in your script, Anthony Fokker passed away in December 23rd, 1939 in New York City, not 1936. Love the video tho.
Such a cute little jetliner :)
In my opinion, the big reason this airplane did not get developed was because a twin jet with only an 18 passenger capacity and minimal cargo/luggage capacity would not be profitable to operate in passenger service. And it was a bit too early to be successfully marketed as a business jet. Most other aspects of this airplane were technically feasible. The chin mounted engines while odd looking, were not too much of an issue. The nose wheel was actually behind the jet air intakes and were adequate for jets of that time. A number of other jets from that time frame had inlets close to the ground like this one. Remember, these engines were only providing thrust in the 2,000 lb to 6,000 lb range, so their huge demand for air was much less than later engines.
18 passengers with 1000 mile range, the DC-3 could seat 12 more and had an additional 500 mile on the range. A faster flight time for that 1000 miles was the only selling point
@@rod.h8064 true that. And their are still DC-3 airplanes flying around in revenue service and making money for their operators. Some have even been converted to turbine engines (Turboprop, Basler DC3 conversions).
The 737 has it's engines so close to the ground that they had to modify the engines and nacelles with a flat-bottom profile to give clearance. Don't even talk about the 737MAX!
@@EuroScot2023 yes, starting with the 737-300 series with the high bypass CFM engines, they reshaped the engine cowlings and repackaged the accessory drives to move them to the sides of the engines instead of underneath. And in the end, it worked just fine. The bigger LEAP engines on the MAX series were bigger and more powerful and as a result, they were moved forward and mounted a bit higher. But agin, they worked just fine, but the wing and engine changes did change the way the plane flew and handled a bit so it no longer flew quite the same as the earlier models. The plane worked just fine. In fact, it actually had better performance. But it’s flight performance was enough different, it would have required additional training and certifications to transition to. And Boeing wanted to keep the same type certificate, so they came up with the MCAS system to make the plane fly just like the previous generation. And did not tell the pilots. They succeeded in that respect. But they screwed up the design and function of the MCAS system, not the 737 MAX itself. They made a critical design error that eliminated the dual angle of attack sensor redundancy for the data input, and when the critical sensor failed, it triggered a series of inputs and actions by the MCAS system which caused the airplane to prevent the pilots from properly controlling the aircraft that then lead to the crash of 2 fully loaded planes. And on top of that, Boeing decided to try and pass the cause onto the pilots flying the plane instead of going opps, we got a problem, let’s fix it. That part was all on Boeing management. Not the basic 737-MAX plane design. And then the consequences of Boeing’s actions resulted in the loss of certifications and grounding of the airplane for over two years.
When I first saw the picture it looked like they had slapped a couple of the German JUMO engines under the fuselage of a DC3 😊.
More like a C-46, Curtiss Commando.
Two corrections: Anthony Fokker died in 1939, not 1936. And the KLM director's surname was PLESMAN, not PIELSMAN ('ples' like in 'wet').
Outstanding video, thanks!. The engines appear to be as low-slung as a 737's so I don't think that would have been an issue
Did he just call the Rolls Royce engine the 'nay nay'? 😂
He did...
To be honest. I actually like the planes design, I think it’s unique and i would totally buy it
Another brilliant video and a great explanation of how the Comet's development may have been influenced by the F26 Phantom. Thanks for posting!
If a DC3 and a Comet had a relationship.
Anthony Fokker, though Dutch, had worked for Hugo Junkers in WW1 and ended up “stealing” Junkers aerodynamic technology. This was the thick airfoil that made the monoplane possible but had a much higher lift to drag ratio that gave the German billers such as the Fokker Triplane, Fokker DVIII superior climb rates to allied aircraft despite far weaker engines.
wing and tail gives away an exhibition design. As military contractor Fokker was familiar to sound barrier and rocket busters effects
The first time I see that concept (to be honest I didn't lose much). In general, it is like a crisscross between Curtiss Wright's Commando fuselage and some German war concepts, particularly Messerschmidt.
Questo mi mancava, tutto sommato ha una configurazione bella e fuori dal comune ... molto bello.
Un saluto
With the exception of the low-slung engines sucking in debris the Fokker design looked like a winner. It's a shame it was never built.
Well said
@05:31 you pronounce the engine name “nay-nay” it’s not that it’s pronounced “neen” after the river nene
That looks so sleek, I want to fly one to Tahiti.
Mr. Fokker was one of the best man who came from the Dutch East Indies. The pride of the colony and the overall of The Royal Kingdom of The Netherlands.
I thought he was German until the rise of the Nazis, when he moved to the Netherlands (only to have the Netherlands occupied by the aforementioned Nazis).
Wow! I never knew this aircraft was ever conceived until I saw this video. It looks cool. And I’d much rather be in that thing if it had to make a water ditch landing, rather than a typical jet, with engines slung underneath the wings . But man ol man, if those engines ever blew up, everybody is toast with the engines being right up against the fuselage.
Remember, Sp0ns0rBLOCK is your friend. Yes indeed. Fly high with this.
similar thing happened to the Dutch' southern neighbours, when the Belgian Renard 35 first flew as an airliner with pressurized cabin in 1935, months before the Boeing 307.
The first flight of the Belgian 35 was in 1938 and it crashed killing its pilot.
@@rayjames6096 ah yes, design started in 1935, hence the 35 in the name. it still flew earlier than the 307, but it crashed due to pilot's error, he was not cleared to take her off the ground when he did... a recurring thing with renard's prototypes, on two occasions a pilot bailed from his prototypes (R32 and the Epervier) and gave ridiculous reasons why, losing the prototypes. in the case of the epervier in 1929 there's suspicion the pilot (De Smet) was paid by rivalling companies to do that...
@@roelantverhoeven371 I'm sure your insinuating with this conspiracy tale the rival company that paid this pilot to crash the plane he was piloting was Boeing so it could be the first manufacturer with a pressurized cabin...you hear the same conspiracy nonsense from the British with the TSR-2.
I'm more of an aft Man myself, but that's quite a front view
I recall a documentary on a jet-powered passenger plan built in Canada by either deHavilland or Avro-Canada. It would be nice to see your take on that.
The last few rows of seating would've been pleasant seeing that they were directly above the jet exhaust.
At 5:20 the Rolls-Royce engines are pronounced 'ne-ne' but Nene is actually pronounced *Neen* after the Nene river in Northamptonshire in England
Fun fact, its the river that flows through the Village were Henry Royce was born.
Looks very DC3 meets the Jetsons.
This is by far the most Fisher Price looking plane I've ever seen.
Would be a very interesting private jet instead of a regular jetliner (unless for short hops, or interconnecting flights).
What is the title of the music you used to score the video?
Haha, as a native 🇧🇪 speaker of the Dutch language, the word 'vliegtuigontwikkeling' is very easy to pronounce. But i admit it must be a monstruous challenge for people who don't know Dutch...
Yeah I'm Afrikaans which is pretty close to Dutch. But I know that especially those "Gs" are hard to pronounce for English speakers.
@@iamthebatmanxiii3574 Baie goeie opmerking...
@@deepinthewoods8078 baie dankie.
Julle het my voorgespring!
What a fabulous video. All the imagery had me entranced and wishing that the plan had come to fruition. I don't think a gear up landing would have been a very happy experience, though. 😮
With the greatest respect and appreciation of your fine work, aircraft designations are generally pronounced as individual letters, not words. ME-262 is pronounced as Emm Eee two six two, not Me two six two. Take it for what you will. Thank you for the variety of information you bring to our screens.
Meteor anyone. Not German, not US ...
OMG, I'm a cloggy , Fokker enthousiast and even used to work for a company related to Fokker, however i had never heard of the F26-Phantom.
Ok, at the time as an airliner it would indeed have been a disaster, but as a proof of concept it surely would have kicked ass.
There alwas was an issue for which you have to understand Dutch culture, and that's the behavoure of wanting to be a big Cadilac but still behave like Calimero. Almost literly translated: "Act normal, than you're deranged enough"
Even with the Fokker 50,60,70,100 line if the company would sell one aircraft they would feel like they were Boeing.
After the company ceased production i still had airlines that intended to buy multiple Fokker-100 not knowing the company ended up in bankruptcy (one of many).
To bad, Fokker Aircraft made real nice products and although the extended F27, F28 line (after modernization known as Fokker-50 and Fokker-100) by now surely performance and therefore economy wise would be outdated there was realy the knowhow to design excelent new aircraft (althoug the plan to compete with B737 and A320 would sound a bit over ambitious).
I also worked with a Fokker partner company, and I remember being told that the problem was that the aircraft was built with DMarks, but sold in US $ , and the exchange rate killed it.
@@jimff5 Hmmm Jim, it may be for the -100 but in General the US marked would not realy be interesting in Fokker Aircraft (to slow, to expensive, Not make in USA)
Same for the UK that at the time was verry well capable to design and build equivialent aircraft like he BAC111 (almost a copy of the F28) and the Hereald (hardly to differ from the F27) and many other nice designs.
However the rest of the world even today would be interested.,
The F26 Phantom is a interesting airplane jetliner. Betrayal that's not too good enough. Nice plane I like it so far.❤😊
Interesting parallel to the story of the Avro Canada c.102 Jetliner, which first flew in 1949, just 13 days after the Comet!
These jokes about the imperial system will never get old.
I heard recently they don't make 12 inch rulers any longer 🤷🏻♂️
@@rickyrico80 Plenty old stock on sale then, as well as steel tapes for those needing longer measurements in either cm or orchestra.
Given the reliable history of these post war Fokker aircraft this wasn't unreasonable.
Looks soo cool
As a real aeronautical engineer I have a few criticisms, it maximizes:
1. interference drag
2. wing bending by not having engine mass on wings, which offers better span loading, critical for high g load conditions.
Also obviously why have jet engines and no wing sweep?
On your point 2 - What do you call an aircraft that endures really high g load conditions? A fighter. Where are the engines on every fighter for the past 70 years? Um!
Finally. Why have jet engines and no wing sweep? Multiple reasons - think of an A10 Thunderbolt 2.
Wing sweep was not well understood back then - early jet fighters like the F-80 Shooting Star and Hawker Sea Hawk had straight wings.
I think the engineers were drunk: if one engine catch fire all people are in the shit.
"...and emerging American aircraft that had only seen limited action." Well, I guess we should probably ignore not only the German Arado 234, but we should especially ignore the Gloster Meteor designed & built in Britain -- you know, the only Allied jet fighter to see combat action in WWII. Aside from that, this was a really interesting video. I don't think the F-26 would have had *that* major an impact -- even the Comet 1 had a slightly longer range & greater capacity, and the Boeing 707 had a range that made the Comet look like a puddle-jumper. Shorter-range jets obviously did come into their own (making their presence known starting with France's Caravelle) but again they had greater range and, more importantly, greater payload. The F-26 would likely have become an interesting footnote as the first commercial jet, hopefully with less tragedy than the Comet, but its short range, limited capacity, and huge jet intakes perfectly positioned to suck up every loose in their path I think it's unlikely that it would have changed the overall course of commercial jet aviation.
Erm by wars end the British had the meteor in service and the vampire not far off plus the Canberra in development
Really enjoyed this video. I didn't know about this aircraft and am very grateful for the information. Some little inaccuracies in the script are mentioned below . What is your fact checking prosess?