Video amendments: 10:15 - This is a Vickers Gun Bus, not an FE.2, this was an oversight on my part in editing, grabbed the wrong image and didnt even notice.... 14:25 - the Ca.1, Ca.2, and Ca.3 all had three engines as well
Just a helpful suggestion: Your background scratchy old period music is way too loud and distracting. When it stops at around 12:00 it is soooo much better! Otherwise an excellent video!
Both Eduard and Roden make model kits of the Austro-Hungarian PKZ-2 helicopter thingy. The Eduard is 1/48 and the Roden is 1/72 scale. Both are highly detailed. What is surprising is that TWO manufacturers would create steel tooling for such an obscure subject. I guess more people know about it in Europe.
12:33 There is always "that guy" that ruins it for everyone else. 6:23 The machine gun version seems a decent idea but can't see the flame thrower version doing much more than setting yourself on fire. I appreciate your dedication to honesty such as 4:30. It wouldn't make a difference to me if it was the first flight or not but you taking the time to tell us it wasn't is appreciated.
The main issues with the AEG J.1 was that the armor made it slower and less maneuverable. When you combine that with a lack of forward firing guns you end up with an airplane that is very easy to shoot down at almost no risk to yourself. The flamethrower version apparently didnt set the plane on fire, and there is an unconfirmed first hand account by an american soldier who claims to have been attacked by a "aircraft throwing flames", still researching the subject to see if I can find more information on it. I'm glad you liked the video!
Your humility is admirable, but misplaced. This was a very enjoyable video. Good work. Thanks! (And special thanks for not using AI for a voice track. That shit is annoying. Your occasional stumble with the script was endearing and added a lot of character.)
Aircraft 2,3,4,6,8 and 10 have been made into remote controlled models. The Ilya Muromets model is particularly impressive (even as a model it is huge) and has been donated to the Sikorski museum. There is a video elsewhere on YT showing it flying. Theodore Von Karmann of the PKZ-2 is a well known aerodynamicist. IIRC of the aircraft modeled number 10 is the only one that couldn't be made to fly, even as a remote controlled airplane.
I absolutely love the Ilya Muromets model, its beautiful to see flying as an RC aircraft. I did see someone make a Fokker D.8 model as well, although they complained it was very difficult to fly. I saw in a forum someone had made the French "airplane" as an RC model but, until they made heavy modifications, it suffered the same issues as the original. Its super interesting
Had "heard" of the PKZ-2 before actually having seen it in a late 60s "Weird Helicopters" book at my local library. Can not disagree that it had to be included :)
8:21 The imaginary "Karman line" between the atmosphere and the outer space, considered to be at an altitude of 100 km, was named after Theodore von Karman, who established a theoretical altitude limit for winged aircraft.
Your a pretty good narrator. So glad you didn't use an AI. Some very odd planes indeed. That last one really does make you wonder what the designers where drinking and smoking at the time they designed it.
Loved your video. You did very good research. I also agree with you that the F.E.2 (b)(d) was an enchanting aircraft. The Vintage Aviator has video of their FE2d copy in flight. Worth watching. The part about Richthofen being shot down by an FE2 has been questioned by WW1 historians though as it rather looks like the bullet that hit Richthofen came from the REAR (look at the surviving flying helmet) possibly from Richthofen's wingman, making it a friendly fire incident. The combat use of the 37mm cannon had already been tested by SPAD (the SPAD 12) but few were produced as only a crack shot could effectively fire through the propeller hub (Guynemer managed a few kills with it.) Otherwise, great video. Looking forward to more.
Thank you very much! Interesting info about the incident with Richthofen, had not heard that before, probably just another excuse for me to justify buying more books haha
In reality the Fokker Triplane was not, despite its fame, successful. Few were made and pilots did not trust them as they were prone to structural failure. They were quickly replaced.
At the time, though, it was seen as a success, especially by Idflieg and Fokker. Funnily enough, the mere fact that the DR.1 was extremely difficult to control could indicate the fatal bullet didn’t reach the red baron until he had landed
I feel as though the De Bruyere C.1 may have erroneously been recorded as a fighter. The layout seems much more reasonable as a bomber interceptor. Forward facing heavy gun, extra viewports for target ID (and I'm sure landing), metal skin (while not thick enough to STOP a bullet) would offer *some* protection, and a pusher config that would help prevent damage to the engine while attacking the target craft. The uncontrolled roll may have even just been a torque reaction with takeoff power that was coupled with too forward a CG for the wings to resist it. Interesting plane. Not a totally irredeemable idea.
@@RahlF I have read several rundowns of its design and I think the roll was a fatal combination of the torque you mentioned and an improper set up of the control surfaces. Minor issues that could have been fixed if a second rebuild was tried (like with the Fokker D.VII) As for its effectiveness, I still find the placement of the autocannon a bit odd, given by that time such implements were found to be wholly ineffective It’s an interesting, if not hideous, aircraft and I enjoyed researching it
First time I saw one of your videos!😎🇺🇸 Great job and execution!🔥🇺🇸 Love the graphic add-ons! Lol And a pleasant tone of voice, informative and entertaining!🇺🇸🔥😎
The FE2 your picture represents is the prototype, the later ones were bigger and had a larger gunner's cockpit. The image following it is the Vickers Gunbus, which was fielded almost 6 months earlier. It wasn't as successful, but the RFC at that time were flying aircraft as weird as the RAF BE3 and Farman's already dated MF7 Longhorn, and the still not really modern MF11 and HF20 pushers. It's funny that the Germans, when they shot down any type of Entente pusher referred to it in their reports as a "Vickers Type". The Gunbus was notoriously heavy and didn't handle as well as the later Airco DH2. The Caproni WWI bombers were all, from the CA.1 to the CA.40, triple engined, with two front mounted on two boom like tail supporting structures and the middle fuselage hosting a pusher engine. The American Expeditionary Forces loved the Ca.40 almost as much as the Salmson A.2. So you missed a few other weird ones. The SPAD A.2, Borel's Militaire,the Supermarine Nighthawk, Caudron's lattice tailed G.IV and the Royal Air Factory's FE4.
The inclusion of the gun bus is my mistake, I have a folder full of pictures and idiotically had one of the gun bus next to a near identical one of an FE2. I'll ad a pinned comment note to indicate that. I forgot to include that the other bombers of the CA line that came before it also had three engines, I can see how that can be taken the wrong way and I should have clarified. It was difficult choosing which ten to include, and based on the feedback I get from this video I may make a video going over a further ten weird aircraft from the war. Unlike the eras following the First World War the weird and strange developments with aviation are just so odd looking Thanks much for your comment and pointing out my mistakes and oversights. Hope you enjoyed the video otherwise!
IIRC, the PKZ-2 got a mention in a large format picture book for children called "The Big Book of Real Helicopters", which I had as a child. I regret that I didn't keep it, as it remains the best book on early helicopters that I've ever come across. And I don't think it is fair to include the FE.2 in this this list. Pushers were very common in the early years of aviation, and not considered weird at all at the time. The fact that the FE lingered on in service longer than other pusher types is a tribute to its good qualities, despite being outdated
Shades of Wacky Races/Get That Pigeon! along with gag reels of very early air tests/crashes on Saturday morning tv during the 60's and 70's showing all kinds of craziness tried out then. Especially the 10 winged fold-up non-takeoff.
@Wolfof1918 Flying Circus, By Erika Chappel. If you like WW1 airplanes, pastoral post-apocalypses, and a mingling of mechanics and roleplay, I'd definitely check it out. It even has a moderately robust airplane builder.
The FK quadroplanes were originally on the list, and I even had part of the script for them written, however I opted to change the script to include more weird aircraft that actually saw active service, I do plan to make a video about them, however, love the look they had, shame they never went into full production beyond what was made
That Caproni bomber... anyone happen to notice how much that thing looked like the later P-38 fighter? Notice at 14:51 how even the engine nacelles look like they're carrying an inline or V-type engine. I wonder if Kelley Johnson of Lockheed happened to have seen this sometime before building the Lightning.
The P-38 came from the design theory that the Caproni bombers did, although the P-38 lacked a pusher propeller. Two "booms" each with an engine and a central "Nacelle" for the pilot. However, the P-38 was not inspired by the layout of the Caproni bombers, rather Lockheed designed the aircraft that way more out of necessity to accomplish what they wanted out of an airframe utilizing the technology of the time (late 1930s)
oh no not tryingi to argue, the development of aircraft is fascinating, especially how very similar aircraft can be made completely independently of each other, the similarities coming from the same engineering problems.
That caproni triplane is the goofiest thing I’ve ever seen and if it didn’t buzz around like a literal insect I’ll be very disappointed Also what in the bad piggies is that helicopter!
That is something I need to get better at. Often I think I have written something one way, only to come back and find it is a near incomprehensible disaster. Not sure what causes it but I always realize my error long *after* it has been published.
Congratulations! At last, someone finally discovers the existence of the extraordinary de Bruyere C1. However, not so cool are your disparaging critique of this unique aircraft. This aircraft is truly remarkable; far from being some sort of leper it is a true vision from the future. See the C1, and think "A10 tank-killer"..... in your rush to dump all over this aircraft you seem to be oblivious to the historical context in which this aircraft arose. Although de Bruyere unlikely knew it his creation came about as the armoured fighting vehicle, i.e. first appeared on the battlefields of WW1 in 1917. This aircraft would have proved vital, potent tank-killer had WW1 continued. It is a tragic loss to aviation progress and history that de Bruyere threw in the towel so readily and doubly so at the lack of foresight and vision displayed by the French military who failed to grasp how important this aircraft would have been to keeping pace with the rapid advances in fighting tactics. That the prototype tragically did a 'Titanic' on its first flight is not an indication of any design flaw since de Bruyere did not even attempt a post-mortem and post-crash analysis so we are only left to speculate. It might just as easily been due to a careless rigging error. For instance, compare the C1 to Rutan's "Quickie" and measure the many decades of time between them to grasp just how modern this aircraft was. You also seem to harbour some sort of irrational bias against pusher-prop aircraft. Clearly you lack any appreciation of the superiority of the pusher fighter configuration over the abominable tractor design foisted onto combat aviators by visionless military leaders. If you criticisms were to hold even a grain of truth then maybe you can explain the universal adoption of the jet-powered fighter which in essence is just a pusher propelled aircraft?? If there is meant to be something inherently 'wrong' with this configuration then maybe you can explain why they aren't all just arbitrarily falling out of the sky?? Exemplorary fighter aircraft like the WW2 KYUSHU 'Shinden' are stand-out designs that were actually built along with the multiple designs from all the other combatants with notable proposals from the likes of Blohm und Voss, etc. Modern pusher-props are just too numerous to catalog, like Piaggio, the B.A.C. 'SABA', etc, etc.... "gosh, guess the designers of all these aircraft must be suffering from a delusion - how could they all get it so wrong?"
Considering people have made scale models of the aircraft with identical results trying to fly them, and that making it stable required the complete redesign of the aircraft, I'd say it was a pretty lost cause, especially by the standards of the time. Not to mention the A10 is an over-hyped piece of American Military Propaganda in the same vein as the JU-87. an airplane that was pretty good when it came out but has been used far beyond its actual lifespan (not to mention the A10 is hardly an effective tank killer) Theres also the issue of purpose. the C1 was not made to attack armored vehicles. Why would it be? Germany had no more than a small handful at any one time, and they were hardly deemed an issue. Not only that, but the placement of the gun was to specifically be for facing off other aircraft, potentially acting as a flexible gun to also face ground troops. Another misguided theory. I don't hold a bias against pusher aircraft. I've been in one and I know fellow pilots who fly them. My best friends dad flew one as a recon pilot during desert storm. They have their purpose. However, they do not make for great combat aircraft, especially in the context of WW1 where the technology of the time completely favored agile tractor aircraft over the pusher types. Again, you are assuming I dont like pusher aircraft and are trying to place later technologies onto an airplane during WW1 for specifically WW1 actions. also, Jets suffer in their maneuverability due to them being "pushed" through the air. They are also more difficult to control and have higher stall speeds, higher landing speeds ETC. These are not problems at all with *modern* aviation, especially with training. That is why I speak of things within the context of World War One. Something I recommend you try to do before making incorrect and arrogant assumptions about me, my opinions, my experiences, and my knowledge.
@@Wolfof1918 Sorry for all who have had to suffer through this nonsense as have had I but in case you are all wondering why the ,following responses seem dis-jointed it's because there originally was a single, contiguous response to this videographer's frankly, arrogant response. He is apparently of the vain, thin-skinned disposition who lacks the requisite humilty to admit when he is wrong and - equally frankly - doesn't know what he's talking about. You see, I lodged an objection to his offensive reply on the grounds of 1) Misinformation and, 2) Offensive remarks (see his closing comments). The fact that UA-cam has failed to take down his reply reveals to you all the incompetence of the AI assessment software that afflicts us all these days as UA-cam doesn't seem to employ any humans in frontline duty anymore. The total crap in his amateurish reply is an especially egregious offence but I'm sure that once you examine the links I have provided further on you will be able to make up your own minds. Like they say, "a good defense is to undermine and attack with a good offense" and there's nothing better than using the artifices of UA-cam to gag the messenger delivering the inconvenient truth.
Well, I guess I'll have to admit to being 'guilty' of 'arrogance' for not being clairvoyant, or possessing ESP for not knowing that you harbour a secret pro-pusher fetish. Sure wouldn't have know it from your narrated commentary - maybe you should have made that clear in your video in order to avoid the embarrassment?? Your eagerness to remind us all of the supposed problems of the pusher configuration would have been of great solace to the Wright brothers who went on to cause you to choke down an overly large piece of humble pie by successfully flying a aircraft with - wait for it - a nose-mounted elevator and a pusher-propeller!
.... and..... (from Mr. GOOGLE): During the forty-day conflict of Operation DESERT STORM, the A-10 force was credited with destroying 987 tanks, 926 artillery pieces, 1,355 combat vehicles, and a range of other targets-including ten fighters on the ground and two helicopters shot down in air-to-air engagements..... Well, well, I guess the A-10 must have been a real dud, right??
My apologies about that, I sometimes forget to check how the video came out on other devices before publishing to ensure the mix is good and not just good for my set up
Don't really see the issue in that, especially since none of my issues with the airplane are misplaced or unjustified. not to mention I didn't slander it non-stop and gave it credit where credit was due. point it it was an awful airplane that nearly killed a guy because of its terrible design.
Mr. Lighthousegravy Obviously has a French connection..! Considering how Nuts that Plane looked. I think the Review was Rather Fair..! 😂 Only the French could take Offence..! Great Selection of Kooky AirCraft..! 🤣
Ahhh... French military aircraft could be... interesting? No, I guess the word is "disturbing"... but yeah, the morbid fascination is definitely there.
The French were very advanced before and during WW2 aviation wise, but they definitely had their fair share of awful aircraft There’s a reason why the phrase “The French copy no one and no one copies the French” exists in regards to their aviation history
Really weird insult when I poked fun at *one* French airplane lol The French had some of the best aircraft heading into and leaving WW1 my friend. Maybe don’t assume my understanding of the conflict
Yeah that was overlooked by yours truly. Most of these aircraft have their measurements listed in metric without an imperial conversion, combine that with I’ve grown very accustomed to using it and I didn’t even realize I wasn’t adding imperial measurements
Google can do meters to standard for you. Here’s useless tidbit. Original Egyptians may have used measuring system similar to meters, while building pyramids.
No. Grow up and do the mental conversation yourself. The rest of the world does it with Americans only posting in imperial. Only a few hundred Americans watch this channel.
Video amendments:
10:15 - This is a Vickers Gun Bus, not an FE.2, this was an oversight on my part in editing, grabbed the wrong image and didnt even notice....
14:25 - the Ca.1, Ca.2, and Ca.3 all had three engines as well
I think this is a well researched and well said of the 10 WEIRDEST Airplanes of WW1......Thank you....
Old F-4 Phantom pilot Shoe🇺🇸
Thank you very much for the kind words, sir!
Platz was not a designer.
@ considering he designed aircraft id say he was definitely a designer. The more apt term would be engineer
I'm surprised you didn't include the two Nieuport triplanes in this list.
Great stuff. Love WW1 aircraft content. Thank you very much.
That last one looks like something from crimson skies.
It has an almost steampunk look to it, a very interesting airplane
Yeah, so cool. Maybe a good candidate for a model. I imagine it would take some modifications to make it fly though.
I just found a pictorial magazine from 1918. The stories about after the war such a timecapsile. Old ads its so cool
Those were totally cool, thanks man.
Just a helpful suggestion: Your background scratchy old period music is way too loud and distracting. When it stops at around 12:00 it is soooo much better!
Otherwise an excellent video!
Thank you sir! I made sure to not have any background music in my most recent upload :)
@@Wolfof1918 Excellent. I will appreciate it.
@@Wolfof1918i agree
I actually have a model of a PKZ 2. Also, a friend of mine's grandfather became an ace in an FE2. He also lost five observers.
Both Eduard and Roden make model kits of the Austro-Hungarian PKZ-2 helicopter thingy. The Eduard is 1/48 and the Roden is 1/72 scale. Both are highly detailed. What is surprising is that TWO manufacturers would create steel tooling for such an obscure subject. I guess more people know about it in Europe.
Don't forget cubits, perches, roods chains and furlongs.
I really thought the SPAD S.A. would be on this list.
12:33 There is always "that guy" that ruins it for everyone else. 6:23 The machine gun version seems a decent idea but can't see the flame thrower version doing much more than setting yourself on fire. I appreciate your dedication to honesty such as 4:30. It wouldn't make a difference to me if it was the first flight or not but you taking the time to tell us it wasn't is appreciated.
The main issues with the AEG J.1 was that the armor made it slower and less maneuverable. When you combine that with a lack of forward firing guns you end up with an airplane that is very easy to shoot down at almost no risk to yourself. The flamethrower version apparently didnt set the plane on fire, and there is an unconfirmed first hand account by an american soldier who claims to have been attacked by a "aircraft throwing flames", still researching the subject to see if I can find more information on it.
I'm glad you liked the video!
Your humility is admirable, but misplaced. This was a very enjoyable video. Good work. Thanks! (And special thanks for not using AI for a voice track. That shit is annoying. Your occasional stumble with the script was endearing and added a lot of character.)
Thank you very much for the kind words :)
You occasionally refer to Rhône engines as radial. Very different
Aircraft 2,3,4,6,8 and 10 have been made into remote controlled models. The Ilya Muromets model is particularly impressive (even as a model it is huge) and has been donated to the Sikorski museum. There is a video elsewhere on YT showing it flying. Theodore Von Karmann of the PKZ-2 is a well known aerodynamicist. IIRC of the aircraft modeled number 10 is the only one that couldn't be made to fly, even as a remote controlled airplane.
I absolutely love the Ilya Muromets model, its beautiful to see flying as an RC aircraft. I did see someone make a Fokker D.8 model as well, although they complained it was very difficult to fly. I saw in a forum someone had made the French "airplane" as an RC model but, until they made heavy modifications, it suffered the same issues as the original. Its super interesting
Had "heard" of the PKZ-2 before actually having seen it in a late 60s "Weird Helicopters" book at my local library. Can not disagree that it had to be included :)
wow valicu 3 actually has covered radial engine. talking about ahead of its time
8:21 The imaginary "Karman line" between the atmosphere and the outer space, considered to be at an altitude of 100 km, was named after Theodore von Karman, who established a theoretical altitude limit for winged aircraft.
Your a pretty good narrator. So glad you didn't use an AI. Some very odd planes indeed. That last one really does make you wonder what the designers where drinking and smoking at the time they designed it.
Loved your video. You did very good research. I also agree with you that the F.E.2 (b)(d) was an enchanting aircraft. The Vintage Aviator has video of their FE2d copy in flight. Worth watching. The part about Richthofen being shot down by an FE2 has been questioned by WW1 historians though as it rather looks like the bullet that hit Richthofen came from the REAR (look at the surviving flying helmet) possibly from Richthofen's wingman, making it a friendly fire incident. The combat use of the 37mm cannon had already been tested by SPAD (the SPAD 12) but few were produced as only a crack shot could effectively fire through the propeller hub (Guynemer managed a few kills with it.) Otherwise, great video. Looking forward to more.
Thank you very much!
Interesting info about the incident with Richthofen, had not heard that before, probably just another excuse for me to justify buying more books haha
In reality the Fokker Triplane was not, despite its fame, successful. Few were made and pilots did not trust them as they were prone to structural failure. They were quickly replaced.
At the time, though, it was seen as a success, especially by Idflieg and Fokker.
Funnily enough, the mere fact that the DR.1 was extremely difficult to control could indicate the fatal bullet didn’t reach the red baron until he had landed
I feel as though the De Bruyere C.1 may have erroneously been recorded as a fighter. The layout seems much more reasonable as a bomber interceptor. Forward facing heavy gun, extra viewports for target ID (and I'm sure landing), metal skin (while not thick enough to STOP a bullet) would offer *some* protection, and a pusher config that would help prevent damage to the engine while attacking the target craft.
The uncontrolled roll may have even just been a torque reaction with takeoff power that was coupled with too forward a CG for the wings to resist it. Interesting plane. Not a totally irredeemable idea.
@@RahlF I have read several rundowns of its design and I think the roll was a fatal combination of the torque you mentioned and an improper set up of the control surfaces. Minor issues that could have been fixed if a second rebuild was tried (like with the Fokker D.VII)
As for its effectiveness, I still find the placement of the autocannon a bit odd, given by that time such implements were found to be wholly ineffective
It’s an interesting, if not hideous, aircraft and I enjoyed researching it
First time I saw one of your videos!😎🇺🇸
Great job and execution!🔥🇺🇸
Love the graphic add-ons! Lol
And a pleasant tone of voice, informative and entertaining!🇺🇸🔥😎
That last airplane might have made a good short range spotter airplane.
Names are harder than finding details of 110 year old airplanes
Basically lol
The FE2 your picture represents is the prototype, the later ones were bigger and had a larger gunner's cockpit. The image following it is the Vickers Gunbus, which was fielded almost 6 months earlier.
It wasn't as successful, but the RFC at that time were flying aircraft as weird as the RAF BE3 and Farman's already dated MF7 Longhorn, and the still not really modern MF11 and HF20 pushers. It's funny that the Germans, when they shot down any type of Entente pusher referred to it in their reports as a "Vickers Type". The Gunbus was notoriously heavy and didn't handle as well as the later Airco DH2.
The Caproni WWI bombers were all, from the CA.1 to the CA.40, triple engined, with two front mounted on two boom like tail supporting structures and the middle fuselage hosting a pusher engine. The American Expeditionary Forces loved the Ca.40 almost as much as the Salmson A.2.
So you missed a few other weird ones. The SPAD A.2, Borel's Militaire,the Supermarine Nighthawk, Caudron's lattice tailed G.IV and the Royal Air Factory's FE4.
The inclusion of the gun bus is my mistake, I have a folder full of pictures and idiotically had one of the gun bus next to a near identical one of an FE2. I'll ad a pinned comment note to indicate that.
I forgot to include that the other bombers of the CA line that came before it also had three engines, I can see how that can be taken the wrong way and I should have clarified.
It was difficult choosing which ten to include, and based on the feedback I get from this video I may make a video going over a further ten weird aircraft from the war. Unlike the eras following the First World War the weird and strange developments with aviation are just so odd looking
Thanks much for your comment and pointing out my mistakes and oversights. Hope you enjoyed the video otherwise!
IIRC, the PKZ-2 got a mention in a large format picture book for children called "The Big Book of Real Helicopters", which I had as a child. I regret that I didn't keep it, as it remains the best book on early helicopters that I've ever come across.
And I don't think it is fair to include the FE.2 in this this list. Pushers were very common in the early years of aviation, and not considered weird at all at the time. The fact that the FE lingered on in service longer than other pusher types is a tribute to its good qualities, despite being outdated
remind anyone else of the early section of 'Those Magnificent Men' ?
Shades of Wacky Races/Get That Pigeon! along with gag reels of very early air tests/crashes on Saturday morning tv during the 60's and 70's showing all kinds of craziness tried out then. Especially the 10 winged fold-up non-takeoff.
I built a model of that helicopter. Pretty cool for its day.
I play a tabletop game that actually features the De Bruyère C 1.
Thats super neat! Which game is that?
@Wolfof1918 Flying Circus, By Erika Chappel. If you like WW1 airplanes, pastoral post-apocalypses, and a mingling of mechanics and roleplay, I'd definitely check it out. It even has a moderately robust airplane builder.
@Wolfof1918 I don't know if UA-cam ate my previous response, but it's called Flying Circus by Erika Chappel. I recommend it whole heartedly!
UA-cams problematic way of showing comments made it hard to find but I did get them to eventually show up
Thanks much!
You might consider the Koolhoven FK quadroplanes.
The FK quadroplanes were originally on the list, and I even had part of the script for them written, however I opted to change the script to include more weird aircraft that actually saw active service, I do plan to make a video about them, however, love the look they had, shame they never went into full production beyond what was made
wow that last one is... like p39 but more advanced. engine in middle but also pusher prop
No one expects the Spanish inquisition
Zee French love Jerry Lewis…..they have an ‘unusual’ sense of humor!
That Caproni bomber... anyone happen to notice how much that thing looked like the later P-38 fighter? Notice at 14:51 how even the engine nacelles look like they're carrying an inline or V-type engine. I wonder if Kelley Johnson of Lockheed happened to have seen this sometime before building the Lightning.
The P-38 came from the design theory that the Caproni bombers did, although the P-38 lacked a pusher propeller. Two "booms" each with an engine and a central "Nacelle" for the pilot.
However, the P-38 was not inspired by the layout of the Caproni bombers, rather Lockheed designed the aircraft that way more out of necessity to accomplish what they wanted out of an airframe utilizing the technology of the time (late 1930s)
@@Wolfof1918 No argument, just noting an observation.
oh no not tryingi to argue, the development of aircraft is fascinating, especially how very similar aircraft can be made completely independently of each other, the similarities coming from the same engineering problems.
@@Wolfof1918 Agreed.
That caproni triplane is the goofiest thing I’ve ever seen and if it didn’t buzz around like a literal insect I’ll be very disappointed
Also what in the bad piggies is that helicopter!
Caproni built some really weird ones during the interwar period
IN Aviation, just like all engineering, If it looks wrong - it probably is.
7:42 top cinco scariest jumpscares
haha that was definitely a goal of that part
3:40 You might want to proofread your title cards. Potentially good videos immediately look amateurish with bad spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc.
That is something I need to get better at. Often I think I have written something one way, only to come back and find it is a near incomprehensible disaster. Not sure what causes it but I always realize my error long *after* it has been published.
Congratulations! At last, someone finally discovers the existence of the extraordinary de Bruyere C1. However, not so cool are your disparaging critique of this unique aircraft. This aircraft is truly remarkable; far from being some sort of leper it is a true vision from the future. See the C1, and think "A10 tank-killer"..... in your rush to dump all over this aircraft you seem to be oblivious to the historical context in which this aircraft arose. Although de Bruyere unlikely knew it his creation came about as the armoured fighting vehicle, i.e. first appeared on the battlefields of WW1 in 1917. This aircraft would have proved vital, potent tank-killer had WW1 continued. It is a tragic loss to aviation progress and history that de Bruyere threw in the towel so readily and doubly so at the lack of foresight and vision displayed by the French military who failed to grasp how important this aircraft would have been to keeping pace with the rapid advances in fighting tactics. That the prototype tragically did a 'Titanic' on its first flight is not an indication of any design flaw since de Bruyere did not even attempt a post-mortem and post-crash analysis so we are only left to speculate. It might just as easily been due to a careless rigging error. For instance, compare the C1 to Rutan's "Quickie" and measure the many decades of time between them to grasp just how modern this aircraft was. You also seem to harbour some sort of irrational bias against pusher-prop aircraft. Clearly you lack any appreciation of the superiority of the pusher fighter configuration over the abominable tractor design foisted onto combat aviators by visionless military leaders. If you criticisms were to hold even a grain of truth then maybe you can explain the universal adoption of the jet-powered fighter which in essence is just a pusher propelled aircraft?? If there is meant to be something inherently 'wrong' with this configuration then maybe you can explain why they aren't all just arbitrarily falling out of the sky?? Exemplorary fighter aircraft like the WW2 KYUSHU 'Shinden' are stand-out designs that were actually built along with the multiple designs from all the other combatants with notable proposals from the likes of Blohm und Voss, etc. Modern pusher-props are just too numerous to catalog, like Piaggio, the B.A.C. 'SABA', etc, etc.... "gosh, guess the designers of all these aircraft must be suffering from a delusion - how could they all get it so wrong?"
Considering people have made scale models of the aircraft with identical results trying to fly them, and that making it stable required the complete redesign of the aircraft, I'd say it was a pretty lost cause, especially by the standards of the time.
Not to mention the A10 is an over-hyped piece of American Military Propaganda in the same vein as the JU-87. an airplane that was pretty good when it came out but has been used far beyond its actual lifespan (not to mention the A10 is hardly an effective tank killer)
Theres also the issue of purpose. the C1 was not made to attack armored vehicles. Why would it be? Germany had no more than a small handful at any one time, and they were hardly deemed an issue. Not only that, but the placement of the gun was to specifically be for facing off other aircraft, potentially acting as a flexible gun to also face ground troops. Another misguided theory.
I don't hold a bias against pusher aircraft. I've been in one and I know fellow pilots who fly them. My best friends dad flew one as a recon pilot during desert storm. They have their purpose. However, they do not make for great combat aircraft, especially in the context of WW1 where the technology of the time completely favored agile tractor aircraft over the pusher types.
Again, you are assuming I dont like pusher aircraft and are trying to place later technologies onto an airplane during WW1 for specifically WW1 actions.
also, Jets suffer in their maneuverability due to them being "pushed" through the air. They are also more difficult to control and have higher stall speeds, higher landing speeds ETC. These are not problems at all with *modern* aviation, especially with training. That is why I speak of things within the context of World War One. Something I recommend you try to do before making incorrect and arrogant assumptions about me, my opinions, my experiences, and my knowledge.
@@Wolfof1918 Sorry for all who have had to suffer through this nonsense as have had I but in case you are all wondering why the ,following responses seem dis-jointed it's because there originally was a single, contiguous response to this videographer's frankly, arrogant response. He is apparently of the vain, thin-skinned disposition who lacks the requisite humilty to admit when he is wrong and - equally frankly - doesn't know what he's talking about. You see, I lodged an objection to his offensive reply on the grounds of 1) Misinformation and, 2) Offensive remarks (see his closing comments). The fact that UA-cam has failed to take down his reply reveals to you all the incompetence of the AI assessment software that afflicts us all these days as UA-cam doesn't seem to employ any humans in frontline duty anymore. The total crap in his amateurish reply is an especially egregious offence but I'm sure that once you examine the links I have provided further on you will be able to make up your own minds. Like they say, "a good defense is to undermine and attack with a good offense" and there's nothing better than using the artifices of UA-cam to gag the messenger delivering the inconvenient truth.
Well, I guess I'll have to admit to being 'guilty' of 'arrogance' for not being clairvoyant, or possessing ESP for not knowing that you harbour a secret pro-pusher fetish. Sure wouldn't have know it from your narrated commentary - maybe you should have made that clear in your video in order to avoid the embarrassment?? Your eagerness to remind us all of the supposed problems of the pusher configuration would have been of great solace to the Wright brothers who went on to cause you to choke down an overly large piece of humble pie by successfully flying a aircraft with - wait for it - a nose-mounted elevator and a pusher-propeller!
Proof of the mis-information: ua-cam.com/video/j5W81-quSM4/v-deo.htmlsi=7TUa72Jnt8nTKko7
.... and..... (from Mr. GOOGLE): During the forty-day conflict of Operation DESERT STORM, the A-10 force was credited with destroying 987 tanks, 926 artillery pieces, 1,355 combat vehicles, and a range of other targets-including ten fighters on the ground and two helicopters shot down in air-to-air engagements..... Well, well, I guess the A-10 must have been a real dud, right??
Heck man you should be bigger, we are neck and neck lol Jk, I like these kinds of history channels
Shame about the music being so damn loud
My apologies about that, I sometimes forget to check how the video came out on other devices before publishing to ensure the mix is good and not just good for my set up
@@Wolfof1918 Cheers 👍
Romania is known for Dracula 😉, aka Vlad Cepe^z...
Wonder what ole vladdy woulda done if he had access to the Vlaicu III? 🤔
Did a story on Prince Vlad senior year of High School 1979. My great-grandfather is from Transylvania Romania.
Love these videos. Being a Wingnut since mid 1960s. They remind me of the late 1960s monster mash claymation movie aircraft.
Actually Fokker, not fucker. But anyway.
I-BADZ.. 😂
?
Babe, wake up. Wolf of 1918 dropped.
Babe, wake up, Lazerpig/Animarchy/History of Everything/Cone of Arc except it's WWI and not Russia/Germany Sucks dropped
The French were being French.
No need for snark bro u were not there so why judgemental bro?
No snark here my friend, nor any undue judgement that hasnt already been levied
The last plane was done dirty. I hated the fact that you just slandered it non-stop. Your ranting made me sick.
Don't really see the issue in that, especially since none of my issues with the airplane are misplaced or unjustified.
not to mention I didn't slander it non-stop and gave it credit where credit was due.
point it it was an awful airplane that nearly killed a guy because of its terrible design.
Mr. Lighthousegravy Obviously has a French connection..! Considering how Nuts that Plane looked.
I think the Review was Rather Fair..! 😂
Only the French could take Offence..!
Great Selection of Kooky AirCraft..! 🤣
Ahhh... French military aircraft could be... interesting? No, I guess the word is "disturbing"... but yeah, the morbid fascination is definitely there.
The French were very advanced before and during WW2 aviation wise, but they definitely had their fair share of awful aircraft
There’s a reason why the phrase “The French copy no one and no one copies the French” exists in regards to their aviation history
Mate, at around about 8 minutes, you start babbling like a lunatic. I bet that bit was not in the transcript and I wish you hadn't done it.
🇷🇴
That's not Fokker is pronounced.
It is as a native English speaker
The French engineers have better grades than you, and they were so thought about a lot of things when they were still around. You seem lacking.
Really weird insult when I poked fun at *one* French airplane lol
The French had some of the best aircraft heading into and leaving WW1 my friend. Maybe don’t assume my understanding of the conflict
You really should include measurements in Miles, yards, feet, inches, pounds, etc. for the other 400 million of us who don't do the metric system. 😮
Yeah that was overlooked by yours truly. Most of these aircraft have their measurements listed in metric without an imperial conversion, combine that with I’ve grown very accustomed to using it and I didn’t even realize I wasn’t adding imperial measurements
While I agree, I know both so it’s fine for me…I was going to say that maybe he’s Canadian but then he said he was an American…so never mind
Google can do meters to standard for you. Here’s useless tidbit. Original Egyptians may have used measuring system similar to meters, while building pyramids.
You really should get your head out of your ass and learn how to use the metric system.
No. Grow up and do the mental conversation yourself. The rest of the world does it with Americans only posting in imperial.
Only a few hundred Americans watch this channel.
You totally forgot the world's first jet-engine powered biplane, the famous Coanda-1910.
It was a bit early to be used in the video, plus it’s arguable that it was even a jet engine, let alone if it worked