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
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!
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
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.
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!
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
@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.
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!
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
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.
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
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.
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
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!
Great stuff. Love WW1 aircraft content. Thank you very much.
I just found a pictorial magazine from 1918. The stories about after the war such a timecapsile. Old ads its so cool
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
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.
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!
I built a model of that helicopter. Pretty cool for its day.
Names are harder than finding details of 110 year old airplanes
Basically lol
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
7:42 top cinco scariest jumpscares
haha that was definitely a goal of that part
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!
That last one looks like something from crimson skies.
It has an almost steampunk look to it, a very interesting airplane
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!
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
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.
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
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.
I-BADZ.. 😂
?
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.
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