Funny story about the post-war American tail-sitters mentioned briefly: Even the best test pilots at Convair and Lockheed had trouble trying to get the things down. They could just about do it on an empty airstrip on a sunny day, but the prospect of trying to land them in bad weather or a carrier deck terrified them (and you know a plane's a deathtrap when it terrifies a 1950s test pilot!) Kelly Johnson, the head of the Lockheed design team, sent a message to the Navy explaining the problems and finishing the letter with the words "We feel it is inadvisable to land the airplane." The Navy replied with a single paragraph letter saying "We agree."
From what I've read about the US tail-sitters was that the test pilot could not see the ground behind himself when landing. You'd think the being able to see where you're landing would be important. Sometime ago I did see some figures for 1950s US trainee test pilots which revealed that half of them would be killed during the training. During this period one UK test pilots would be killed every two weeks.
@@nobodyherepal3292 it flies awfully, it’s tail is really fragile too, loosing a single control surface creates an imbalance making it unable to maneuver unlike a normal aircraft. However it is fast
Only if you really bother with tail sitting landing. Space-X finally nailed it with their reusable landing booster rockets but without the computers avalible now, it just doesn't work well. Ignore tail landing and you can have an vertical takeoff interceptor. The reason why we do not see those now is thst we got surface to air missiles now that make the concept moot.
Some thought was put into how the pilot was gonna bail in the Triebflügel, they had made the bolts that connected the blades of the rotor explosive so at any time the pilot had to bail they could explode the blades of and than bail.
Because the pilot in the Lerche flew it in a prone position (meaning he would be standing during the landing phase) the increased visibility with the ground would probably mean getting it back on the ground would've most likely had been much easier. With the Convair Pogo however, although the seat tilted somewhat so the pilot wasn't flat on his back, he still had to look back over his shoulder to gauge his height. (The Lockheed version's pilot would've had similar issues had it ever attempted vertical flight.) The Ryan X-13 Vertijet also had this problem but with the added difficulty of having to catch a wire on a gantry as it never actually sat on its tail. (Oh, to add difficulty to that operation the hook was on the bottom of the Vertijet and the pilot had to finagle the plane into the wire which the pilot couldn't see, again, because the hook was on the bottom of the plane.) In operation of the Pogo, Convair test pilot Jim Coleman shared everything he learned with Lockheed test pilot Herman Salmon so he would be prepared should Lockheed's plane ever get engines that were set up to operate vertically. As it was, the Pogo had the only XT40 engine able to operate in a vertical position so the XVF-1 never got a chance to do so.
If the Triebflugel actually got made I imagine the inside view of the test pilot flying it goes something like this: "AAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaAAAAAAAaaaaa!!!!!" as it spins around violently before ripping apart.
One massive aspect I feel many are quick to gloss over is how awful trimming would be on a vehicle like this. How much did they think that tiny tail would be able to trim out all that mass spinning around. Don't get me started on what that would do if it was even imaginably about to land and what would happen once the wheels touch the ground. How would the wheels take it?
I very much enjoy these videos about novel designs and if they could have been made functional. I'm a writer of fiction so these often fuel ideas for "what if" stories.
I'v e build a Triebflugel in KSP and while the big rotating jet-powered "thing" does manage to lift off the thing, the amount of control authority to get it out of that vertical climb is just not feasible. In fact, the entire fuselage tries to counter rotate. And KSP has a much more forgiving aerodynamic model.
@@jimmcneal5292 Same here. So you need two counter rotating giant propellers. Then you get into all sorts of gyroscopic fun when you try to turn the thing.
@@jimmcneal5292 The propeller is driven by jets at the tips so there is no counter-rotation of the fuselage. A somewhat similar mechanism was used by the Kolibrie helicopter, which had a main rotor driven by 2 ramjets at the tips, and no tail rotor. To allow the pilot to orient the aircraft, a small movable fin was mounted on the tail, acting on the rotor's downdraft.
Look, the French SNECMA company actually built something akin to this with their _Coléoptère_ project. Trying to make it fly, though, proved to be a major problem because they couldn't make it safely transition from vertical to horizontal flight.
Just like the American Osprey. I have NEVER seen footage of the rotors transitioning from vertical to horizontal flight . IF it can do it why don't the Americans show it , as they are always keen to show the rest of the world how superior they are?
The most interesting thing about the triebflugel that is never touched on is how they'd keep track of each other, especially during that chaotic launch. You couldn't see, so they settled on audible alerts. Every triebflugel was equipped with three triebfleugelhorns the pilots could sound at aill. This is an official not-a-fact.
The Lark looks like with some tweaks you could make something able to take off and land conventionally or vertically the vertical take off could be great for hiding it in a forest. Perhaps having something narrow enough to land on a road has some merit too. But I suspect that would throw the weight off a bit putting wheels on the "donut" But perhaps some struts mounted in the support mounts that sat lower than the wing might work, but it could be very top heavy that way. but perhaps pumping remaining fuel into the belly could help with that. I suppose a huge alluminum frame would be mounted on it's backside that it could land on that was more like a pyramid it wouldn't tip then and it could even coast on it's bum without tipping over and so be easier to land as the pilot wouldn't have to stop forward momentum to land. & thrust reversers could push it down into it's struts to slow it to a stop. So it could make a rolling landing. The current design is to heavy and would tip over unless it stopped completely all lateral motion to the ground and just lowered altitude until it touched down. I can't help but think regardless it would be heavier than it needed to be and very unstable to land.
That's how the US Navy ended up testing their tailsitters. Fit them with (intended to be) temporary landing gears so they could take off and land traditionally in order to test behaviour in normal flight, without going through all that messing about with transitioning to and from vertical flight.
I would like to see this plane built using modern technologies and materials... A lot of the planes would make a great museum and airshow destination... I know I would love to go to an X plane museum where I could see these things fly...
ruhrstahl x4 on the lark...... funny joke..... realy good one. and for everyone wondering: there was a single test with those missiles on a single seater plane and the pilots complained afterwards that aiming the missiles was a problem when you also had a plane to fly (the rx4 was the first guided air to air missile) due to the manual guidance of the rx4. and now put them on a plane that neither can be extended into a two seater and where the pilot has a harder on the pilot controll scheme and you get why this is a good joke. also yeah: the rx4 was apparently tested with two seater 262 jets making the schwalbe the first jet to use guided ammo.
@@mikhailiagacesa3406As the missile had to be hand flown by the controlling pilot, it was pretty much a 2 man job, yes. Think of a 1970s/80s TOW missile fired from a helicopter, but at a target moving at 10-20 times the speed of a tank.
How about parachute for landing. The plane swoops down and up in a vertical climb, with no power. Waits for the speed to drop and releases the parachute from the nose, or attach to the planes nose. I'm guessing it wasn't quite doable for the time. Just a thought.
Japanese suicide pilots often made more than one trip. It was expected they might have mechanical trouble, not find their target, run into bad weather, or for any number of reasons have to turn back. Getting jumped by allied pilots was even a problem. Though you only got about 10 round trips before someone decided you were faking and then you wished you hit a battleship instead. It was the 1940s and finding where you were going was often really difficult and something even skilled pilots had trouble with.
The "ch" in German is pronounced like a hissing cat or snake. History has it, that Hitler wanted the Me 262 as fighter-bomber, hamperring the development and early production considerably. Moreover, the piloted V1 was an emergency measure to iron out some aerodynamic issues, regularly driving the primitive autopilot nuts. It probably would have needed a proper turbojet like the Heinkel "Volksjäger" and definitely a landing gear, as it usually was launched by a catapult and regularly did blow up on arrival.
The problem of landing a tailsitter defeated both the Convair XFY and the Lockheed XFV experimental fighters. The test pilots had extreme difficulty landing on a flat, unobstructed, and stationary surface in calm weather. How these VTOL fighters were supposed to operate from ships at sea was never worked out to anything beyond hand waving. Both planes were fitted with non-retracting temporary landing gear for basic flight tests, but operational-type landing scenarios were basically controlled disasters. If the Navy should ever resurrect the tailsitter VTOL concept, they should hire Elon Musk as a consultant. His tailsitters seem to be able to land rather frequently.
ther have been several sucxefull tip jet helicopters from tiny one-man ones with hydrogen peroxide ockets - to the faiery rotordyne with ram jets to the mighty hughs XH-17 with ducted gas turbines - my point is thy all overcame the problems of tip mounted motors - so i see no technical problems for getting the trifugels rotor to work
Rocket powered rotors have actually been used successfully, but only really on otherwise conventional or semi-conventional air vehicles- this whole "landing on your tail" thing simply seems impractical in every format that I'm familiar with.
If germany won ww2 i believe Lerche pilots would be preferred candidates for future german space program similar to the Apollo Program. Better suited for moon landing missions.
The Triebflügel seems like a very flawed design to me. - Gyroscopic effects would be a problem - The rotor would transfer some momentum to the fuselage through friction, making roll control a pain to deal with - Any damage would cause an imbalance and oscillations, and it's a pretty easy target for an array of M2s with ~500rpm - It can't glide and would probably perform very badly in an auto-rotation. It's the kind of design you put on a fridge, just to admire the creativity.
The reason why Germany had such a plethora of bizarre and impractical aircraft notions -- let us agree that very few of these last-ditch proposals were sufficiently developed to be worthy of even being called designs -- was Hermann Göring's desperation to regain Hitler's respect and favor. Beginning with Dunkirk in 1940, the Luftwaffe had proved unable to fulfill Göing's wild promises and boasts. Each failure prompted Göring to seek escape from reality through artists' renderings of fantastic "vaporware" fighters that supposedly could rescue Germany and Göring's personal career as Hitler's successor along with his daily dose of morphine. Germany's aviation industry discovered there was substantial money to be made just by submitting vague and insubstantial proposals rather than firm and achievable projects. Göring created a profitable market for fantasy flying machines, and entrepreneurs responded accordingly.
The odd sosialism which was innovative and productive even it used low motivated and educated forced labour. Where are "I did made V2 rockets" worker memour books?
Funny story about the post-war American tail-sitters mentioned briefly: Even the best test pilots at Convair and Lockheed had trouble trying to get the things down. They could just about do it on an empty airstrip on a sunny day, but the prospect of trying to land them in bad weather or a carrier deck terrified them (and you know a plane's a deathtrap when it terrifies a 1950s test pilot!)
Kelly Johnson, the head of the Lockheed design team, sent a message to the Navy explaining the problems and finishing the letter with the words "We feel it is inadvisable to land the airplane." The Navy replied with a single paragraph letter saying "We agree."
From what I've read about the US tail-sitters was that the test pilot could not see the ground behind himself when landing. You'd think the being able to see where you're landing would be important.
Sometime ago I did see some figures for 1950s US trainee test pilots which revealed that half of them would be killed during the training. During this period one UK test pilots would be killed every two weeks.
Not really a career move.
the "lerche" can be found in IL-2 Sturmovik 1946
What’s it like in game?
@@nobodyherepal3292 it flies awfully, it’s tail is really fragile too, loosing a single control surface creates an imbalance making it unable to maneuver unlike a normal aircraft. However it is fast
@@nobodyherepal3292 it controls surprisingly easy on take off and landing, and when in flight its quite a *f a s t b o i*
V/STOL: The problem isn't taking off, it's landing the "tail sitter."
How very astute of you to recognize that. Especially since the narrator specified this exact thing.
@@Species5008 my favorite part of the video is when he talked about the German planes
Only if you really bother with tail sitting landing. Space-X finally nailed it with their reusable landing booster rockets but without the computers avalible now, it just doesn't work well. Ignore tail landing and you can have an vertical takeoff interceptor. The reason why we do not see those now is thst we got surface to air missiles now that make the concept moot.
Indeed, craft vertical landing Is a very tricky manouver even today with computer assisted systems, trying to do it by hand was a recipe for disaster
They call them helicopters or tilt wings.
I believe that, in both cases, especially the Trifluegel, no thought was put into how the pilot was meant to bail out.
Some thought was put into how the pilot was gonna bail in the Triebflügel, they had made the bolts that connected the blades of the rotor explosive so at any time the pilot had to bail they could explode the blades of and than bail.
Because the pilot in the Lerche flew it in a prone position (meaning he would be standing during the landing phase) the increased visibility with the ground would probably mean getting it back on the ground would've most likely had been much easier. With the Convair Pogo however, although the seat tilted somewhat so the pilot wasn't flat on his back, he still had to look back over his shoulder to gauge his height. (The Lockheed version's pilot would've had similar issues had it ever attempted vertical flight.) The Ryan X-13 Vertijet also had this problem but with the added difficulty of having to catch a wire on a gantry as it never actually sat on its tail. (Oh, to add difficulty to that operation the hook was on the bottom of the Vertijet and the pilot had to finagle the plane into the wire which the pilot couldn't see, again, because the hook was on the bottom of the plane.) In operation of the Pogo, Convair test pilot Jim Coleman shared everything he learned with Lockheed test pilot Herman Salmon so he would be prepared should Lockheed's plane ever get engines that were set up to operate vertically. As it was, the Pogo had the only XT40 engine able to operate in a vertical position so the XVF-1 never got a chance to do so.
If the Triebflugel actually got made I imagine the inside view of the test pilot flying it goes something like this: "AAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaAAAAAAAaaaaa!!!!!" as it spins around violently before ripping apart.
One massive aspect I feel many are quick to gloss over is how awful trimming would be on a vehicle like this. How much did they think that tiny tail would be able to trim out all that mass spinning around. Don't get me started on what that would do if it was even imaginably about to land and what would happen once the wheels touch the ground. How would the wheels take it?
I very much enjoy these videos about novel designs and if they could have been made functional. I'm a writer of fiction so these often fuel ideas for "what if" stories.
I'v e build a Triebflugel in KSP and while the big rotating jet-powered "thing" does manage to lift off the thing, the amount of control authority to get it out of that vertical climb is just not feasible. In fact, the entire fuselage tries to counter rotate. And KSP has a much more forgiving aerodynamic model.
Although KSP struggles with high RPM rotors (because they don’t spin so much as jump frame to frame).
That's what I thought when I saw this huge propeller the first time. Of course it's gonna counter rotate.
@@jimmcneal5292 Same here. So you need two counter rotating giant propellers. Then you get into all sorts of gyroscopic fun when you try to turn the thing.
@@jimmcneal5292 The propeller is driven by jets at the tips so there is no counter-rotation of the fuselage. A somewhat similar mechanism was used by the Kolibrie helicopter, which had a main rotor driven by 2 ramjets at the tips, and no tail rotor. To allow the pilot to orient the aircraft, a small movable fin was mounted on the tail, acting on the rotor's downdraft.
Look, the French SNECMA company actually built something akin to this with their _Coléoptère_ project. Trying to make it fly, though, proved to be a major problem because they couldn't make it safely transition from vertical to horizontal flight.
Just like the American Osprey. I have NEVER seen footage of the rotors transitioning from vertical to horizontal flight . IF it can do it why don't the Americans show it , as they are always keen to show the rest of the world how superior they are?
5:50 The rotor probably would've behaved like a gyroscope, making the plane quite stable.
The most interesting thing about the triebflugel that is never touched on is how they'd keep track of each other, especially during that chaotic launch. You couldn't see, so they settled on audible alerts. Every triebflugel was equipped with three triebfleugelhorns the pilots could sound at aill. This is an official not-a-fact.
so they stuck Jericho sirens on the wingtips?
Hopefully, explosive bolts would have released the entire cockpit section in the event of evacuation being necessary.
The Lark looks like with some tweaks you could make something able to take off and land conventionally or vertically the vertical take off could be great for hiding it in a forest.
Perhaps having something narrow enough to land on a road has some merit too.
But I suspect that would throw the weight off a bit putting wheels on the "donut" But perhaps some struts mounted in the support mounts that sat lower than the wing might work, but it could be very top heavy that way. but perhaps pumping remaining fuel into the belly could help with that.
I suppose a huge alluminum frame would be mounted on it's backside that it could land on that was more like a pyramid it wouldn't tip then and it could even coast on it's bum without tipping over and so be easier to land as the pilot wouldn't have to stop forward momentum to land. & thrust reversers could push it down into it's struts to slow it to a stop.
So it could make a rolling landing. The current design is to heavy and would tip over unless it stopped completely all lateral motion to the ground and just lowered altitude until it touched down.
I can't help but think regardless it would be heavier than it needed to be and very unstable to land.
That's how the US Navy ended up testing their tailsitters. Fit them with (intended to be) temporary landing gears so they could take off and land traditionally in order to test behaviour in normal flight, without going through all that messing about with transitioning to and from vertical flight.
Give the Germans credit. They certainly were not afraid to think out of the box!
triebflügel would also be susceptible to "stall" if input is too strong and then spin out of control, like a firework spinner
I would like to see this plane built using modern technologies and materials... A lot of the planes would make a great museum and airshow destination... I know I would love to go to an X plane museum where I could see these things fly...
IHYLS.. you take on experimental aircraft that i’ve wanted to see, but until now, haven’t found!👍🏻✈️
ruhrstahl x4 on the lark...... funny joke..... realy good one. and for everyone wondering: there was a single test with those missiles on a single seater plane and the pilots complained afterwards that aiming the missiles was a problem when you also had a plane to fly (the rx4 was the first guided air to air missile) due to the manual guidance of the rx4. and now put them on a plane that neither can be extended into a two seater and where the pilot has a harder on the pilot controll scheme and you get why this is a good joke. also yeah: the rx4 was apparently tested with two seater 262 jets making the schwalbe the first jet to use guided ammo.
Thanks. Always wondered if the X4 was a 2 man job. Would like some on my Me 110g.
@@mikhailiagacesa3406 actually it might have happened. if the plane was capable of getting radar it could also take on the rx4 rocket as ammo.
@@mikhailiagacesa3406As the missile had to be hand flown by the controlling pilot, it was pretty much a 2 man job, yes.
Think of a 1970s/80s TOW missile fired from a helicopter, but at a target moving at 10-20 times the speed of a tank.
Fuel would have been easy for the first one. Just set up a valve and allow centrifugal force to push the fuel out.
Reminds me of "Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe" by Lucasfilm Games 1991 DOS game.
S.W.O.T.L
Rm4 missles were a must have they were very promising in combat
They made a GunStar?
Just imagine being the pilot of a Triebflugel and have to bail out with a three giant blades behind you.
Desperation generated pure genius... With lethal flaws in some cases.
👍
Good stuff!
How about parachute for landing. The plane swoops down and up in a vertical climb, with no power. Waits for the speed to drop and releases the parachute from the nose, or attach to the planes nose. I'm guessing it wasn't quite doable for the time. Just a thought.
Both look like a 1 way trip to me !!!
Japan could have used them !!!
Japanese suicide pilots often made more than one trip. It was expected they might have mechanical trouble, not find their target, run into bad weather, or for any number of reasons have to turn back. Getting jumped by allied pilots was even a problem.
Though you only got about 10 round trips before someone decided you were faking and then you wished you hit a battleship instead.
It was the 1940s and finding where you were going was often really difficult and something even skilled pilots had trouble with.
The "ch" in German is pronounced like a hissing cat or snake.
History has it, that Hitler wanted the Me 262 as fighter-bomber, hamperring the development and early production considerably.
Moreover, the piloted V1 was an emergency measure to iron out some aerodynamic issues, regularly driving the primitive autopilot nuts.
It probably would have needed a proper turbojet like the Heinkel "Volksjäger" and definitely a landing gear, as it usually was launched by a catapult and regularly did blow up on arrival.
The only time that gizmo flew was in the Captain America movie!😂😂
I think it also appeared as a Neuroi in one episode of Strike Witches.
The problem of landing a tailsitter defeated both the Convair XFY and the Lockheed XFV experimental fighters. The test pilots had extreme difficulty landing on a flat, unobstructed, and stationary surface in calm weather. How these VTOL fighters were supposed to operate from ships at sea was never worked out to anything beyond hand waving. Both planes were fitted with non-retracting temporary landing gear for basic flight tests, but operational-type landing scenarios were basically controlled disasters. If the Navy should ever resurrect the tailsitter VTOL concept, they should hire Elon Musk as a consultant. His tailsitters seem to be able to land rather frequently.
ther have been several sucxefull tip jet helicopters from tiny one-man ones with hydrogen peroxide ockets - to the faiery rotordyne with ram jets to the mighty hughs XH-17 with ducted gas turbines - my point is thy all overcame the problems of tip mounted motors - so i see no technical problems for getting the trifugels rotor to work
Rocket powered rotors have actually been used successfully, but only really on otherwise conventional or semi-conventional air vehicles- this whole "landing on your tail" thing simply seems impractical in every format that I'm familiar with.
If germany won ww2 i believe Lerche pilots would be preferred candidates for future german space program similar to the Apollo Program. Better suited for moon landing missions.
Much like the parasite bombers in "Captain America".....
The Triebflügel seems like a very flawed design to me.
- Gyroscopic effects would be a problem
- The rotor would transfer some momentum to the fuselage through friction, making roll control a pain to deal with
- Any damage would cause an imbalance and oscillations, and it's a pretty easy target for an array of M2s with ~500rpm
- It can't glide and would probably perform very badly in an auto-rotation.
It's the kind of design you put on a fridge, just to admire the creativity.
3:03 and that happens if you only know Ace Combat 😂
The reason why Germany had such a plethora of bizarre and impractical aircraft notions -- let us agree that very few of these last-ditch proposals were sufficiently developed to be worthy of even being called designs -- was Hermann Göring's desperation to regain Hitler's respect and favor. Beginning with Dunkirk in 1940, the Luftwaffe had proved unable to fulfill Göing's wild promises and boasts. Each failure prompted Göring to seek escape from reality through artists' renderings of fantastic "vaporware" fighters that supposedly could rescue Germany and Göring's personal career as Hitler's successor along with his daily dose of morphine. Germany's aviation industry discovered there was substantial money to be made just by submitting vague and insubstantial proposals rather than firm and achievable projects. Göring created a profitable market for fantasy flying machines, and entrepreneurs responded accordingly.
I think these are examples of getting paid to come up with something knowing it would never be completed
You could flt the 2nd one in IL2 1946.
😉👍
Rotodyne later made it work.
Somehow, the middle part of any "brilliant" idea.
The V1 is not a rocket.
There would be No way to keep the Fuselage stable. The friction from the Prop would Spin Ya. Treibevogol would never had Worked
The odd sosialism which was innovative and productive even it used low motivated and educated forced labour. Where are "I did made V2 rockets" worker memour books?
The only time that gizmo flew was in the Captain America movie!😂😂