Flying with Secret Nazi Technology - Bell X-5
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 сер 2024
- The American Bell X5 revolutionized aircraft design and performance in the 1950s thanks to its unique capability to change the sweep of its wings during flight. However, the aircraft was not an original American idea but was actually inspired by a Nazi prototype.
The Bell X5 was an upgraded version of the World War II-era German model Messerschmitt P.1101, which was taken from the Luftwaffe at the end of the conflict.
The unfinished German aircraft could only change its wing sweepback prior to take-off, while the Bell X5 could do it mid-flight by a state-of-the-art automatic system. The aircraft was used by the United States Air Force to test the advantages that the wing sweep could generate in speed and maneuverability.
The Bell X5 flew during the Korean War as part of a joint effort between the US Air Force and the precursor of NASA, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. And even though it demonstrated outstanding potential and paved the way for aircraft like the F14 Tomcat, the Mig 23/27, and the Panavia Tornado, several fatal incidents put the project at risk.
---
Join Dark Skies as we explore the world of aviation with cinematic short documentaries featuring the biggest and fastest airplanes ever built, top-secret military projects, and classified missions with hidden untold true stories. Including US, German, and Soviet warplanes, along with aircraft developments that took place during World War I, World War 2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the Gulf War, and special operations mission in between.
As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Skies sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect and soundtracks for emotional impact. We do our best to keep it as visually accurate as possible.
All content on Dark Skies is researched, produced, and presented in historical context for educational purposes. We are history enthusiasts and are not always experts in some areas, so please don't hesitate to reach out to us with corrections, additional information, or new ideas. - Авто та транспорт
If you look at the Swedish SAAB J29, known as "Tunnan" (the barrel), you will see the same swept wings and central jet engine. The British de Havilland Ghost centrifugal compressor engine was used, giving the plane its signature barrel like shape.
SAAB had gotten design data from German engineers who had fled to Switzerland at the end of WW2.
As for Neil Armstrong, I’m sure he had an obscure and unremarkable career after this.
Neil who?
Yah, he would later go on to become an astronaut during his work on X-15 program. So, not a bad career.
I think you mean Stretch Armstrong.
@@dragthatsht r/wooosh i think you are wanted there
@@aidanconnors2450 I think that is meant for you, bud
Bell sure made a ton of X-planes back in the day.
@Brian Roome And they can thank the Germans for that, since a boatload of ideas came from them lol
@@daftbence Even if you remove the German inspired projects from the list, the US still produced a ridiculously large number of experimental designs compared to any other nation.
That's why you also have the x-factor
@@daftbence And the UK too.
Razor made a ton of scooters too
The title is accurate - the X-5 was based heavily on German ideas. But it did not 'revolutionise aircraft design and performance in the 1950s'. It's function, as with the P1101 was to investigate one particular issue, the effects of different sweep angles. Remember that the first Bell X-5 didn't roll out the door until 4 years after, for instance, the F-86 Sabre. The F-86 itself made significant use of German WWII experience with swept-wing aerodynamics and in fact many of its design features were carried over directly from the Me-262. The F-86 was praised for its handling and outperformed the rather evil Bell X-5 on all parameters. So the Bell product was never going to compete for production contracts. What it did do, as intended, was provide useful data on the effects of variable sweep and to highlight some of the pitfalls. Similar work was occuring in the UK and in fact Barnes Wallis had already identified the CofG/CofL issue and identified a likely solution before the Bell X-5 had flown. So, yes, this did inform later development of hugely successful aircraft such as the F-111, F-14 and Tornado, but it is also significant that swing-wing designs did not revolutionise the aircraft industry but remained tied to very specific scenarios that had to combine short-field and high-speed requirements. By the mid-1980s the complexity and weight of swing-wing designs was no longer required as other solutions emerged. As an example, a Typhoon fighter/bomber uses less runway, out-turns and has a higher top speed than a Tornado, and by a considerable margin.
And thank God Neil Armstrong walked away from the X-5 unscathed.
The F111 was our principal fighter bomber in Australia for many years and one of its stranger missions was the sinking if the Pong Su which was a heroin transportation ship our government decided would be better as a reef for fish than delivery of heroin into Australia.
I'd love to see more on it and the iconic F14 Tomcat .
I will NEVER forget as an 8 year old lad back in the seventies when dad drove us up the Bogong road to have a Little hike at Mt Bogongs base when we were stopped 10 km short by the army - I was so excited -
Tanks and troopers blocking the road to joint exercises between army and air force !
While we waited to turn around ( it was a thin only recently made bitumen road a thunderstorm approached -
Or so I thought ....
The entire experience lasting maybe 10 seconds from the beginning rumble and then at what flt like only 75 metres height coming up the valley ultra low roared a V flight of 3 of our F111s ( I was a builder of model military planes from the Sopwith Camel to the New and beautiful F16 and knew all the sillouettes so identified thin in a heartbeat .)
Onwards over our heads and towards Australia's highest mountain they thundered from sight !
A true highlight of my childhood ,
A grand memory of times with my Dad whom would gladly concur this tale were he still with us .
Namaste .
Very much like the swedish sweep wing Fighter jet j-29. First flight 1948. Even that one had a lot of accidents in the beginning due to the different handling compared to earlier airplanes. When the pilots learned how to fly it safely, accidents was still high, due to demanding excersis during the cold war.
The CIA would not had been happy about the sinking of a drug ship.
@@Desertduleler_88 lol
@@Desertduleler_88 Why would the CIA be upset about the Aussies hitting a rival gang member's distribution network??
Awesome as usual, thank you for helping me learn about obscure and interesting things
As obscure as these aircraft were, honestly, we wouldn't have the famous and well-known planes of today without them.
My brain: This kicks ass
My body: *Grooves to the tunes*
I visited Wright Patterson AFB museum this weekend, looked at this bird too. Thanks for giving me more background information.
I'm pretty sure it should have been a combination of the B-17 and B-24 bombers. The B-25 was a tactical bomber and rarely flew in formation with those four engine bombers.
Usual mistake, I'm sure the narrator meant B-17 and B-24.
Doolittle did fly it as a strategic weapon, but that was an oddity.
@@Justanotherconsumer The Mitchell was a medium bomber that flew one long range mission only by removing all the normal equipment, armor plate, and all the defensive guns except for the top turret. Fuel cells were stuffed everywhere in the plane where space could be found, and the bomb load was limited to 2,000 pounds. This was repurposing a medium bomber into the long range strike role, not making it into a strategic bomber.
Still my favorite channel. Thanks for covering this lesser known x-plane. Interesting to get Scott Crossfield’s take on the aircraft and hear about Joe Engle’s experience. Both of those guys were some seriously skilled test pilots. Great video!
How about a film not of a warplanes but of what Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrid, etc did before becoming astronauts? You could do one on the late, great Capt Eric Brown of the Fleet Air Arm too. He holds 2 world records that are unlikely to ever be broken.
I heard that Kurt Tank was working for both Argentinian and Indian government for their aircraft after the war.
Yeah, he designed the FMA Pulqui for Argentina and the Hindustan Marut for India
At fully unswept form, it is one of the coolest looking aircraft I've ever seen.
Great video, as always. One of my favorite things to do is take the aircraft showcased here and recreate them in Kerbal Space Program, although I haven't figured out variable swept wings yet. Don't have any DLC's, and although I thought the docking ports realignment in last update would be useful I have just gotten Kraken attacks whenever I try lol
Infernal Robotics. I made it working for both wings and tilt rotors
@@hippomormor ah, good idea, haven't looked to mods yet
As a kid in the 60`s, I had a model of the X5 along with all American aircraft at that time hanging from the ceiling by fishing line.
11:07 "...the British Tornado" with German markings. Because apparently Italy and West Germnay had no involvement in the project. And since it's only British I guess the Luftwaffe doesn't the biggest Tornado fleet in service neither...
Just look up Panavia.
@@Getoffmycloud53 why aren't you at your post? Had to ask.
Agreed. It's like when people say the American F-35B even though many of the key components are British and it has some minor componets parts from several countries.
@@teaandmedals well the difference is that with the F-35 it is more about quid pro quo - we’ll buy your F-35 if we get part of the supplier contracts - the Panavia Tornado, like the SEPECAT Jaguar or Concorde, is a multinational consortium like Airbus. The US does not need the UK to produce F-35s. (The complexity of actual supply chains is a different discussion).
Last plane I can think of with the ability to change wing sweep was the F14. Ever wonder why it is not being done today? The ability to chance wing sweep was a complex stop gap measure. Not needed today due to improvements in engines,structure,control. Served its purpose, then done.
"Hey let's use the landing gear from the BF 109, never been any problems with it before".
The B-1 Lancer was introduced more than a decade after the F14 and variable sweep wing is a definitive feature of the B-1. The B-1s are still in service at least until 2036. The Russian equivalent Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack is also a variable sweep wing design and very much in active service.
@@tvgerbil1984 Hey, TV. I didn't say existing planes had to be destroyed. B1 was introduced in 1986.
No new variable-sweep wing aircraft have been built since the Tu-160 (produced until 1992). Ask why. That group of technology (and complexity) is not need today.
@@danr5105 The US Navy did pursue the building of a navalized version of F-22 with swing wing technology to allow these Sea Raptors to operate safely from the relatively short decks of aircraft carriers under the so called NATF (Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter) program. The program was dropped in 1990s when the Soviet Union dissolved and the USN couldn't justify to have these Sea Raptors without a worthwhile adversary in sight. It wasn't really the swing wing technology being irrelevent, it was the geopolitics of the world.
@@tvgerbil1984 One factor that did reduce the need for swing wings (help on take-off) was reducing the weapon/fuel load out when comparing a F14D and a FA-18 Super Hornet. The F14 carried more fuel/arms (much bigger plane also)
Their is a misunderstanding about who made the first multi transistor microchip. It was actually first designed to automatically control the wing sweep of the f-14. Because it was a top secret program the designer could not get patent rights.
I always enjoy these wonderful bits of history. Would you consider making an episode that covers the Liason/spotter aircraft of WWII L-series through Korea and Vietnam through the OV-10?
Thankyou, another factual , accurate and informative doc of a fascinating period of history..! Narrated, and edited wonderfully. !
Great episode... Sometimes, the original idea does not work well because of un-expected issues, like what happened with the Messerschmidt P1101, and the eventual designs that follow the original failed designs, like the Bell X-5... But the ideas that did work well on those original designs, we're applied to other aircraft designs, like the swing-wings on the F-14's, the F-111's, the Soviet SU-17's, Panavia Tornado's.... This is the good that came out of other failed programs...
My jr high art teacher was the grandson of the og Messerschmitt
(Edit) I didn't know having an art teacher directly related to a German aviation designer would be so controversial.
OG Messerschmitt is genius
We're talking about the brightest mind in aviation during ww2, maybe ever... if only we had him on our side the war would have been won overnight.
Nothing like slave labor to keep your factories running right. What a genius!
(X) Doubt
@@treefittyfoh1562 The German war effort was cruel and their limited resources meant that slave labor became a viable method. I'm not saying that slavery is justified. But Messerschmidt was an aircraft engineer and surely he was talented at what he does.
The P-1101 would have been finished and tested in Germany, but the French would not release the drawings. It's good to know how soon this started.
While it worked, stability problems with the plane kept it from being turned into a real fighter. It wasn't until Grumman figured out how to sweep wings without changing the center of gravity that the whole idea finally became viable with the F-111.
Airplane nerd here. The CG change is marginal, the aerodynamic ‘center of pressure change is significant . As the wings sweep, the AC retreats, the plane becomes nose heavy, and up elevator trim required. (Moreover, the AC also retreats across the airfoil at near sonic speeds. This likely unknown to Bell...kind of a double whammy). Anyway Bell countered by sliding the wing forward.
I don’t know how Grumman and General Dynamics compensated for the AC shift. In the years Between the X5 and the F111, engineers accrued volumes of knowledge on transonic/supersonic flow. Cheers
@@danbenson7587 Grumman worked on its own early swing fighter (F10F Jaguar) and ran into the same stability issues. What was learned was applied to the F-111 design (Grumman was the subcontractor for the swing wing subsystem) and that’s how the F-111 became the first plane to sweep its wings in flight without affecting flight stability.
@@Sacto1654 Thanks, I forgot about the Jaguar. I recollect the Jaguar was a dog. It had a stabilator whose incidence was controlled by a canard and the stick was operating the canard. Arrangement proved quirky.
It proved fortunate the U.S. had war surplus test pilots as early jets burned through them. Cheers
On the B-1 the CG must be moved in response to wing sweep changes. This is done by transferring fuel from the forward and aft fuel tanks. Normally it is automatic but can be commanded manually. The manual command is what caused the crash of B-1A Ship 2 in Sep 1984. CG was set manually for a test then the wing sweep was brought forward. The co-pilot failed to move the CG and the crew kept cancelling the warnings for CG out of range. When the wings reached forward position the CG was badly out of limits aft and the aircraft departed. I was on the maintenance crew working ship 2 when it was lost.
I'd love to see a modern swept wing fighter. I fell on love with the F14 Tomcat when I was a kid and love the idea.
Doubt you'll see another VG wing, as they can now change the wing shape.
I'm wondering if the 291st combat engineer battalion was ever at the Oberammergau complex. I have pictures of my grandfather standing next to a Me262 & a stuka nightfighter variant. That are labeled Munich may 1945.
I remember when Australia had F-111s, excellent fighter bombers.
I worked on f111s. They took a long time to get off the ground. But wonderful in flight
Never will forget, was walking along a beach south of Tweed Heads around 1999, one of these was doing a low level flight just below the speed of sound, just picked it up from the corner of my eye, then the noise hit me.
@@vintagetintrader1062 With after-burners fired up ?
Was bright day, did not pick the afterburner being on, it happened so quick, just walking along a squeaky sand beach than ‘bang’ and gone again
What about Bone? Another great swing wing plane.
The B-1 is a hangar queen.
@@kevintemple245 Nothing more impressive than a Bone with full afterburners peal up off the runway and do a high G u-turn
@@rakmanyt if it even gets to the runway. Seriously, the maintenance on those things is atrocious. One day flying out of a month. Maybe.
Wow! your videos are so fascinating. I'm pulled right into your narration and the pictorials, historical footage, actual blueprints are excellent.
The first prototype of the Saab 29 flew on September 1, 1948. The barrel was the first fighter aircraft in Sweden with arrow wings. Information about arrow wings came from Switzerland and is said to have included drawings of Messerschmitt's Me P1101, P1110, P1111 and P1112. SAAB's project manager Frid Wänström fetched these secret papers from Switzerland to Sweden in 1945. The documents came from engineers from Messerschmitt who fled to Switzerland at the end of World War II. Based on this documentation and experience (tests at Messerschmitt), SAAB was able to build the Barrel with arrow wings.
Seems like you've gotten your audio issues worked out for the most part. Good. Great video.
Extremely interesting look at the pioneers of variable swep wing designs....
Got to love how early Jets had open noses like the designers were still thinking "that's where the propeller goes."
To be fair, that's where the clean air is.
Early jets needed very long straight intakes and clean air in order to not compressor stall. This was the lowest drag configuration that met the intake geometry requirements.
Later on, that's where the radar went and the noses tended to be closed up.
Never knew Neil was involved. Learned something. Thank ye.
He also flew the X-15 rocket plane.
I hear that Armstrong fellow went on to great success as a teacher at the University of Cincinnati. Good for him :)
Have read brief summaries on this plane. Never knew it was so problematic. I can understand them not considering the shift in the center of gravity and the tendency of the aircraft to spin. I believe they pumped fuel throughout the plane to compensate for the center of gravity change.
Very misleading! Variable swept wings does not = flapping! Go play Flappy Bird again for a reminder of what flapping is!
The P1101 was also inspiration for the Yak-15 and later the Mig-15
I am going to say no. The Yak 15 was a piston powered airframe with a Junkers Jumo 004 copy replacing the conventional engine. The placement is similar to the P1101 and many other German concepts. Seeing some German designs may have influenced powerplant placement(may have!). If the Mig 15 uses any German prototypes as it's basis then it would be the TA 183. On both counts the "official" Russian statement is that the designs were entirely their own. Although they admit to getting and copying British engines for the Mig, ones the then labour party sold to them.
I can’t see why the Soviets would copy the 1101, which was a heavily compromised design designed for a single purpose. Work on the 262 and others would have been a much more useful basis, as it was for the F-86.
@@speedandstyletony The Yak 15 was clearly a copy. They took a Yak-3 Yumo airframe (a piston engine fighter) put a German Jumo 004 jet engine in it and converted it to the Yak 15. Its exactly the same as a R1101 with the difference of the wings because they used a Yak 3 airframe because it was easier and faster.
After that they developted the Mig-15, look at the top view of a R1101, its exactly the same as a Mig-15, wing angles and everything.
Here's a good video to it it: ua-cam.com/video/QLiUZcUTkPw/v-deo.html
From behind, that looks remarkably like an A-6. (From the front, the intake makes it look totally different.)
Great video thanks for making them
I'm going to the Airforce Museum new week on vacation! I'm looking forward to it. And now I know this is there also. Cool!
Check out the xb 70 on display! Lots of really cool an rare stuff there.
It should be noted that Walter Dornberger worked for Bell Aircraft in Buffalo , NY during the periods that this plane was being developed.
I remember making a solid model of it out of balsa wood . Many years ago this was before plastic kits were ever thought of .
So the P1101 had twin jet engine intakes in the cockpit? Would have been interesting for the pilot!
Hi, could you do videos on search and rescue planes and operations by the Axis and the Allies. Seems the German pioneered these. Could be interesting to learn more about how they found and evacuated e.g. downed airmen.
The Bell X5 really looks a lot like the Saab J29. The J29 sure is a good plane though
The same German data led to the J29 Tunnan som vi säger här hemma. J29 looked like a pregnant pig on ground, but was apperntly good in the air. As the Swedish pilots always trained in realistic scenarions a lot of pilots was lost from the 40s and up to late 80s. Was it low level attack, then it was skimming the sea or the forest. The Soviets was always running in war mood, then the RSAF did the same. Top notch material, top notch pilots and top notch air combat leaders and system, they are still top notch, beware of the Gripen!
Love the synth music!!
The main US bombers were the B-17 and B-24, not the B-25. The B-25 was a medium bomber, the others were heavy bombers.
It resembles an A6 Intruder in its general shape from above.
I'd like to know more about the F1-11. Its long history of use and rather infamous ability to launch its payload, turn & outrun any retaliatory ground strike. Thanks, I like your channels. All fact, no fiction.
The shape and design kinda reminds me of the Vaught F-8 Crusader! Awesome early swept-wing aircraft!!
The F-8 Crusader had a variable incidence wing, but not variable sweep.
You need glasses...
I'm confused. Why would the Germans develope a sweeping wing if you could only move it on the ground? Something doesn't sound right about that
Probably testing concept.
Changing the sweep-back angle of a wing effectively changes the wing-section: unless you could change the wing-section during flight to suit the variations in sweep-back, then there'd have to be devices such as leading-edge slats and flaps that would deploy automatically to compensate for inefficiencies in the wing's performance.
My understanding is it was to strictly analyze performance dynamics of different sweep angles on same aircraft platform. Testing purposes only.
@@onionhead5780 that makes sense. I got the impression that they were trying to create an actual swept Wing aircraft. Maybe they were and the project was never completed. He just kind of glossed over that part but that would be an efficient way to test different angles of attack on the wings.
Another site featured this German aircraft 2 days ago. Yours more in depth and has nice follow through.
A small point, but: The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics was referred to by its initials--"En-ay-cee-ay," not "nackah." (A common mistake: as a precursor to NASA, it is often assumed that the prior initialism was pronounced similarly) Otherwise referred to within the aeronautics community as "the Committee."
Mercy upon those who love syllables.
I thought Barnes Wallis did most of the work on swing wing including the control system
Wow, the crash wreckage of the X-5 looks remarkably like the crash wreckage of the X-2.
I am learning so much from these videos, your research is very detailed and helpful.
I'm surprised that you failed to mention the Saab J-29 Tunnan, so similar to the aircraft under discussion here, and over 500 examples built !!!
See for yourself : ua-cam.com/video/GDWsHo3W7-c/v-deo.html
_AMAZING!!!_ 2:37 The engine inlets were located in the cockpit!
The Westland-Hill Pterodactyl IV of 1931 was a tailless design whose lightly swept wings could vary their sweep through a small angle during flight. This allowed longitudinal trim in the absence of a separate horizontal stabiliser. The concept would later be incorporated in Barnes Wallis's wing-controlled aerodyne.
During the Second World War, researchers in Nazi Germany discovered the advantages of the swept wing for transonic flight, and also its disadvantages at lower speeds. The Messerschmitt Me P.1101 was an experimental jet fighter which was, in part, developed to investigate the benefits of varying wing sweep. Its sweep angle mechanism, which could only be adjusted on the ground between three separate positions of 30, 40, and 45 degrees, was intended for testing only, and was unsuitable for combat operations., as stated.
Four 30mm cannons? Were they shooting at dragons?
The Nazi's may have worked the advantages of the variable geometry wing for high speed flight. BUT the first aircraft to use variable sweep was the Westland-Hill Pterodactyl IV of 1931, which could vary the wing sweep in flight. OK it only moved a few degrees to control, longitudinal trim on this tailless aircraft. This tailless aircraft flew 2 years before the Horten brothers "invented" the flying wing....
yes , many countries work on flying wings, the most known was the Northrop (USA) and the Fauvel (France), but flying wings was unstable and attempt to loss of control, except the Fauvel who use "autostable" profiles, but such profile doest allow high speeds, so was most use on gliders up to the 60' (some built, under license, in Germany...)
@@leneanderthalien yes, there were many. The most forgotten of the early developers of powered tailless aircraft was The Irishman John William Dunne who developed a series of swept-wing tailless aircraft between 1902 and 1913, when ill heath curtailed his flying and he took up fishing. He's better remembered for his book on dry fly fishing and a technique for tying flies than his flying and aircraft. Dunne's designs were designed to have automatic stability, the washout of the wing tips which were well behind the centre of gravity gave his designs longitudinal stability. Yaw stability was achieved by having cloth panels on both on the outer interplane struts. The incidence and interplane were also decreased outboard to help achieve stability. I'm not belittling the achievements Fauvel or any that came after Dunne, but Fauvel's first design came out in 1932 and was based on the theoretical and practical work of George's Abrial from the 1920s.
Max Headroom's Bryce Lynch : "There are no experimental failures. There's only more data!"
Scanning video your research goes far beyond most documentaries thank you
B-1 has moveable wings, awesome aircraft.
Yes it must be younger brother of this thing
The French were so thankful for being liberated from the Nazis that they immediately went back to being their usual helpful uptight selves...SIGH
And after the losses of WW2, immediately decided to go mess with the Vietnamese. That went about as well for them...
@@JohnDoe-pv2iu Touche' ! LMAO
If they have not been done on this channel do the other wing change vehicles since that would be the next story to show.
Not just the X-5, look at the Saab 29 Tunnan. Another duplicate of the same Messerschmitt aircraft but without variable geometry.
Its variable geometry they dont flap. Sick of the clickbait-ass titles from an otherwise decent channel
The title says nothing about 'flapping'.
think they fixed it
@@skylined5534 they changed it to a good title which is quite respectable, but im still gonna leave this here
I remember trying to study the P1101 in college in the early 90s it was hard to track back then
You should do a lengthy video on the Gotha 229/ Ho 229 , always interested in that airframe.
Some bibliography concerning german technology (together with the FOIA for the verification); Henry Stevens Hitler's Suppressed and Still-Secret Weapons (Please buy it from the publisher directly, since these companies struggle to survive).
the AK has always been criticized/condemned - mostly because it was a Soviet design...but it WAS a GOOD design...
And the FB-111 and the B-1
Suggestion: the AMX A1 jet
So, you did a version of the B-25 (gunship), but what im wondering is... Aside from the more Famous B-25, there was also the B-26, which, just by visual comparison, the only different was the tail configuration. Id be interesting to see a video on the B-26 and why it is seemingly "less popular" (or less known") than the B-25 (ie what were its short comings vs the B-25 and advantages, if any).
B-1 bomb has the swept wing concept and it works very well for a low flying, with radar jamming technology, that would work well as a gunship for Special operations.
I beautiful lady, with a nasty sting.
I forgot about the B-1B when I commented on the F-111
Want the Meteor the worlds first jet fighter?
The 262 was the first active one though.
not significant: first in service was the Me 262 (3 months before Gloster Meteor), but the first complete Meteor III squadron was constitued in 1944, before the first Me 262 staffel...But because the alliees did have air superiority, was the development from the Meteor slow down despite better engines was built (like the RR Nene end 1944), so the far improved Meteor 8 was lauch only in 1948 (had a longer fuselage for better stability and better engines,was faster than the Me 262)
4:20 - looks like actor, Cary Grant with his (ahem) entourage.
Another great video, although I find the background music annoying.
What about the F-111? ….. oh wait, you got there with a minute to go :-)
We can wonder how the X-5 would have gone with the stall if it were modified to have a t-tail. A rhetorical question I guess…. Great video, thank you!
XF-10F Jaguar encountered the same problems. Boy seems like everything Neil Armstrong flew broke or it was an eventful flight.
Was interesting to also see in this video the long closed Bell Aircraft factory in Buffalo,NY a facility I've passed by many times wondering what was built there unaware the X planes were made there🤔
Nice
I would love to see a vid about the Fokker G.1 - a P-38 like pre-WW2 design of the Dutch manufacturer. Perhaps a little too obscure, but still, an interesting subject.
Ha, the ad before the prototype segment was a stiff of whiskey, which I’d need before testing
Looks VERY much like the Yakovlev fighter from early in the postwar period! Same set of blueprints written in German?
I always thought that was a Kirt Tank design?
Please make more videos about Russian (Soviet Era) planes, such as Sukhois.
You can see how much the swedish saab j29 tunnan was influenced by German prototype? They look very similar in appearance 🤔
Where can I find the music they use as background music?
J-29 Tunnan mixed with an F-111, nice.
Is it just me or is it suspicious that the Swedish J-29 Tunnan look extremely similar to the P.1011 and the Bell
The Saab 29 was also developed from the P1101
Hey! You forgot to mention the F-111 which paved the way for the Navy's F-14. Only at the end was it mentioned after the F-14 which it preceded.
At 4:21 there is that lady in the center with the beret leaning against the wing.
Whoa.
What a fine looking woman that is / was.
Hard to imagine she would be in her late nineties ( if even alive at all ! )
Love the title change from flapping wings to secret Nazi Technology
And the Grumman XF10 Jaguar ! Same sweep mechanism
Hey Guys, I know its a pretty modern plane but Ive heard that there are come interesting stories about the development of the China/Pak JF-17 fighter. Its a plane that has always interested me because it involved such a strange amalgamation of different nations equipment and expertise to get it to where it is today, and I think of it sort of like the modern day Mig-21 or Mig-29 (sans the number of export sales)
Amazingly looks VERY similar to the Russian MiG. 15
I want to learn more about the Ta-183 if you haven't already done a video about that.