I was at the National Museum of the United States Airforce this last weekend. I can honestly say it is still in the storage hangar. The museum is looking like it may need a 5th exhibition hangar.
@@EstorilEmWPAF Museum has both AAF and USAF planes, they also have italian, german, british, japanese, a bunch of migs... oh and an SU-34, don't look into why they have it. ya this guy might be out for conservation because they have a large open space in the experimental hanger next to the thunderscreech
@@300guy No, the Museum it is at is the National Museum of the United States Airforce. They cover all the way back to the Wright brothers to modern. It does cover the gap mentioning that they were the US Army Air Corp and US Army Air Forces. It had a transition late in the war. After the war they became their own branch but the Army Air Corp/Forces pretty much operated independently through the war but in a combined effort with the rest of the Army and the other branches where they could. Since the Army didn't operate as much in the Pacific except for the Army Air Corp/Force and some engineering battalions and garrison places like Philippines.
Wait a minute...I thought I saw an XB-43 at The Silverhill Restoration facility in Maryland back in the 90's. I remember The Swoose sitting in cradles there as well.
You saw correctly. Silver Hill was more interesting than any other aircraft museum. It also had the Horten jet and a complete Black Widow. What they did not show was what’s tucked away in the other buildings. Here I was to understand several complete WW2 planes.
Did you know that the actress Swoosie Kurtz was named after the Swoose? Yep, her father was one of it's pilots during the war and loved it so much he actually named his daughter after it, he was the pilot for the general that had it as his personal transport aircraft.
Oh, those weird, wacky and wonderful first generation jets... You have made me curious about Douglas and those bug-eyed canopies, since the idea was also used in the C-74 Globemaster.
@@stevepirie8130 The USAAF and USN had a real hard on for "full on .50" right untill the Korean war because, unlike the RAF, Luftwaffe and (to a lesser extend) the soviets, they never faced heavy bombers, so the .50 was good enough.
@@jlvfr The .50 still would have been good enough for heavy bombers had the Axis used them, the issue isn't the size of the aircraft it was the speed, because speed increases the range at with you're engaging other aircraft, what forced US fighter's to eventually switch to cannons wasn't that the aircraft they were shooting at got bigger, it's that they got faster, because once again faster means increased range. The speed of fighter's, both those shooting and being shot at, at the dawn of the jet age created just about the limit in range that multiple .50's would be effective, and they were still effective as the F86's record in Korea clearly demonstrated, once the jet age was well under way missile's took over for downing bombers, even though the US never actually had to use them in the role of shooting down bombers missile's, not guns, are what would have been used for that in the jet age, which leaves fighter's as the only thing a gun would be used for and still US fighter's switched to cannons, and it wasn't because of size, .50's would still take care of a fighter, but not at the increased range they'd have been getting shot at as a product of increased speed. The six to eight .50 cal's that most US fighter's had in WW2 wouldn't have had any problems taking care of heavy bombers had the Axis used them, between the number of .50's and the firing rate of the aircraft version they were like buzz saws to whatever aircraft they were shooting at, they had no problem ripping wings off, smashing engine's and especially killing crewmen, plus they had the added advantage of greatly increased firing time over cannons. During the war the US was playing around with possibly adopting cannons to US fighter's but the very fact that they didn't is proof the .50's were more than adequate, in the middle of doing it someone wisely pointed out that between the fact that they had no problem bringing down any aircraft they came up against, including 4 engine aircraft like the German Condor which was actually the first aircraft shot down by a US pilot in Europe, along with others being shot down by Royal Navy pilots flying Wildcats (Martlet) that only had four .50 cal's in them, and the fact that production would have been interrupted for no good reason they wisely chose not to pursue it further, even more proof is the fact that the A36 Apache version of the P51 was a production aircraft that North America Aviation could easily have kept it's 20mm cannon wings sans it's air brakes in production for the P51 after it'd been developed but the USAAF didn't want cannons for their fighter's, they knew that multiple .50's with their increased firing time was better, aircraft aren't armor plated like tanks, in WW2 the .50 cal was more than capable of chewing up any aircraft in the sky. As pointed out earlier even at the dawn of the jet age in the F86 .50 cal's were more than capable of doing the job, between them no longer having to be put in wings which eliminated convergence and increased rage, like the P38's nose mounted guns that demonstrated that configurations advantage during the war, plus the adoption of radar augmented gun sights and the even more increased firing rate of the aircraft version of the .50 cal the air war over Korea proved the .50 was still capable, the F86 wasn't purpose built just to dogfight MIG's over Korea, it was designed with having to take down large Soviet bombers in mind and the designer's of it had no issues with knowing the .50 cal would have gotten the job done. Some people seem to think that countries like England and Germany selecting cannons for their fighter's during WW2 is some kind of proof that cannons were superior, it most certainly was not, the record that US aircraft armed with .50 cal's amassed during WW2 and even Korea is proof that for some reason they simply choose to ignore, further proof they choose to ignore is the dismal record of 20mm cannons in WW2, German fighter pilots complained continuously that 20mm wasn't powerful enough, the astronomical amount of US aircraft that returned from mission's with multiple 20mm hits is more than proof of that and is exactly why the Germans had gotten to the point where they'd designed under wing pods that were troublesome and reduced a fighter's airspeed from the increase in drag for their 30mm cannons shows how desperate they were to field a gun more effective than a 20mm, and when it comes to the RAF who can blame them for switching to cannons after starting the war with guns on their aircraft that fired what's nothing more than a deer hunting cartridge, that they skipped over the .50 cal to go straight to cannons is understandable after having made a blunder like that but it certainly isn't proof that the .50 cal wasn't a better choice at the time, it's only proof that they over reacted to a mistake they made in the first place, and that was thinking that a rifle cartridge that while having been sufficient in WW1 when aircraft were made of wood and cloth and were much slower would have been adequate in an age of metal skinned aircraft that were three times faster, it'll always remain a complete mystery to me why just before WW2 they selected a rifle cartridge gun as their primary aircraft weapon in both fighter's and the defensive guns of their bombers, it's for the very reason that their bombers couldn't even come close to defending themselves is why they switched to night bombing, their losses early on when they first tried daylight bombing were far greater than any losses US bombers suffered during the war, some of those mission's had up to 70% losses, and it was because the German fighter's could engage them and still break off their attack outside of the range of their .303 defensive guns. Just because they overreacted to a mistake they made early on isn't proof of anything, the .50 cal as an aircraft gun in WW2 and even beyond into the early jet age was perfectly capable of getting the job done and it's record is proof of that.
To modern eyes, a weird looking thing, but I do enjoy the aesthetics of a lot of the really early " transitional " jet aircraft...the double bubble canopy is cool!
Yeah, I agree with that. It must have seemed like science fiction to the allied pilots at the time, always too fast, always too high to catch. Unless when in the landing pattern, of course ☺️
I knew about the mix master, never knew there was a jet version of it. The varieties of American experimental aircraft seems endless, always something new (that's old). Love it! 👍🏻
The jet survives, in the Smithsonian collection. I remember seeing it in storage in Maryland in 1983...EDIT, according to Ed she's now at NMUSAF, which makes sense, as Dayton has a large collection of Air Force experimentals, an entire hangar being devoted to just those. If you like planes and haven't been to Dayton, go. But leave two days minimum, because that place is VAST.
@@stevetournay6103 Someone who was just at Dayton put a post on this video saying it's still not on display but can confirm it's in storage after having seen it there.
One of the very interesting experimental American aircraft, but a point-defence fighter in this case, was the Northrop MX-324, a demonstrator for the planned XP-79 interceptor. First pure rocket-propelled aircraft to fly in the USA. With the pilot flying it in the prone position, it looked like something out of a sci-fi book, the clean lines only marred by the fixed tricycle undercarriage. It was estimated that by the pilot flying prone, he’d still be able to operate the tiny craft under a +12g load and several successful flights were made. The rocket powered XP-79 was aesthetically one of the most beautiful and aerodynamically most efficient aircraft designed in WW2. Once the Achilles heel of rocket fighters ~ endurance ~ was finally acknowledged as insurmountable, they stuck a couple of Westinghouse 19-B axial flow turbojets in it instead as the XP-79B. It flew once in September 1945 for 14 minutes but at 7000’ something went wrong and although the pilot, Harry Crosby, was seen to bale out at around 2000’ he was struck by his aircraft which was stuck in a spin and killed. That also killed the XP-79 and (unfortunately) was one of the first nails in the coffin of Jack Northrop’s flying wing concepts. Another American fighter that never made it past wind tunnel model was the Lockheed L-133. To be powered by two of Lockheed’s own L-1000 axial flow jet engines (with afterburners) it featured a blended wing canard design with a planned speed well in excess of 600mph. It was rejected by the USAAF in 1942 on the grounds that it was ‘too advanced’ !! As a result of this cancellation, some of the work would be used in the P-80 design, which was still inferior to the L-133. Instead of the beauty that was the L-133 Starjet, America got the Bell P-59 Airacomet instead ~ a bit like promising yourself a sleek sports-car but ending up with a panel-van instead.
RAF crews flew night Recon Mission deep into sovietunion with RB-45 Tornados, the Planes were USAF Tornados with British Markings / Roundels, if i remember well it was late 40s or early 50.
It's incredible to think that within the decade the B52 was in the air, Did that not start with a tandem cockpit before switching to side by side? I once had an observers book for 1953 which included various fun machines long forgotten.
The B-52 did indeed start with a tandem cockpit on the XB- and YB- test models. It was switched to a conventional flight deck when experience with the B-47 Stratojet revealed that the small crew permitted by the tandem configuration meant a very heavy workload on the pilot, copilot, and bombardier. The B-52 has a seven-person crew.
Curtiss Lemay wanted the crew to be together to fight the airplane home or at least out of enemy territory. He knew the stories of how one pilot steered with throttles while the other flew and got out of Germany.
Nicely done....ok, the '43 looked like a dustbin narrowed at both ends but you gotta start somewhere....and we, in 2024, are always wise after the event. The Jetmaster was a solid start to the Jet Age.
For those interested, Steve Ginter is getting ready to release a book covering both the -42 and -43 aircraft sometime in November 2024 as part of his Air Force Legends series of books. The Mixmaster I believe set a transcontinental record of some sort in testing and to my understanding had very few problems despite its complexity. America didn't embrace the contra prop idea the way the Brits did, but the Mixmaster was supposedly a good aircraft. Hopefully Ed covers the Mixmaster soon. Great video, really appreciate seeing the American experimental types being covered. Cheers!
Way to go, Ed. I just love your work.if the metallurgy and electronics and understanding of high speed aerodynamics had been developed by 1935, we’d have not lost thousands of bombers and hundreds of thousands of men in the skies over Germany in the war.
I seen it when while on a tour of the restoration hangers just before the Memphis belle was about ready to go on display. If i remember correctly it had its wings off.
At the 6:02 mark you made me laugh out LOUD, albeit inadvertently. With your British accent I heard: "the engine shit some of it's compressor blades...." when of course, you were saying: "shed".... Thanks for ALL your great videos and for a laugh now and again!
To those unfamiliar, the Mixmaster had two Allison engines. The driveshafts connected to the tail mounted gear box. Though it was one gear box, the gearing for each prop was independent. The plane had excellent performance for a bomber topping out at 400mph + on ~2800 hp. It’s a lesson in clean aerodynamic design.
What provision was made for crew bale-out? It looks like the crew would have every chance to go right down the engine intakes. Could they escape down through the belly like in Douglas F3D Skyknight?
The "double bubble" idea sounds like that car that Homer Simpson designed, but head-on it looks like a pair of eyes. Painting a shark mouth on the front of the attack variant might actually look scary.
As far as I am aware, Martin Baker (ejection seats) are still using a Meteor as a test bed. According to 'Wicky' the German jet engines had a lifespan of around 33 minutes, with another 15 added if it came down in one piece. The pilots were told to do a dead stick landing to prolong engine life. In other words, for all intents and purposes, the Meteor was the FIRST usable jet.
Thank you for another informative and entertaining video. Please consider doing a video about The Beechcraft Company's attempt at a large ground attack aircraft. It was called the XA-38 Grizzly. A plane powered by two B-29 engines with a 75MM gun in its nose. Beechcraft did more than make the Model 18 during WWII.
As you can see at 2:04 the Mixmaster was also at one point upgraded to mixed propulsion (highly appropriate, given its name) with the contra-rotating pusher props retained but with a small turbojet hung under each wing. This was the XB-42A. As for replacing the side-by-side canopies with a single canopy for both crew? That's what was done with the 2nd XB-42 prototype. It doesn't seem to have ever been done with either XB-43 prototype. Probably because by the time they worked out that the single canopy was a better setup, it was clear that the XB-43 would only be a testbed rather than an operation combat aircraft, so it would've been a waste of time to make changes like that.
The plywood nose...so that was why the front end of "Versatile II" looked like part of a dilapidated Chris-Craft when I saw it in storage at the Smithsonian decades ago...fascinating!
Love these planes that didn't make it videos. Have you looked into the good looking Curtiss-Wright XF-87 Blackhawk yet? Would like to see a video on that one.
Douglas also looked at a civilian version of the prop version. Probably a case of we've spent the time engineering this new airframe. Is there anything else we could use it for.
The Mixmaster is possibly the stupidest yet coolest name for an airplane. I suppose they could have named the Jetmaster the Japmaster, which would have caused some interesting modern reactions
I will be very interested to hear what you find. The 16 gun thing made me raise my eyebrows, and I nearly didn't include it because I thought it unlikely. But all the (few) sources say that is the case. I do wonder if this is the classic "fact" getting into the history and simply being repeated. So very keen to know if actual technical drawings can tell is for sure. Let us know if you can confirm/deny it 😃
Where did you get the 4x bombs from? I thought Ed said max bombload was 8,000lb. Standard loadout on most combat aircraft is around 50% of the max possible, so it’s safe to assume the range quoted (1100 miles = 550 mile mission radius) was with a “combat load” of around 4,000 lb, I believe B17s were safely flight tested at 18,000 lb bombload but performance fell off the chart and so standard load was 4,000-8,000 lb generally flown at 22,000-25,000 ft over 1800 miles depending upon mission criteria.
It's a shame this thing was cancelled, a production B-43 (or even the original B-42) could've been useful in Korea if the A-26 Invader's performance in that conflict is any indicator.
Must admit, I’ve either completely forgotten about this aircraft (the older I get, the more it happens) or have never seen it. I think it’s the former. It rings a very muffled bell. A 4t bomb capacity is nothing.
I was at the National Museum of the United States Airforce this last weekend. I can honestly say it is still in the storage hangar. The museum is looking like it may need a 5th exhibition hangar.
@@300guyIn the context of this video (he mentioned they approached the USAAF in 1943) it was still the US Army Air Force. USAF was founded in 1947.
@EstorilEm He is referring to the Army Air Forces (yes with an s.) As Double A F when it has never been referred to as such. Always AAF or USAAF.
@@EstorilEmWPAF Museum has both AAF and USAF planes, they also have italian, german, british, japanese, a bunch of migs... oh and an SU-34, don't look into why they have it.
ya this guy might be out for conservation because they have a large open space in the experimental hanger next to the thunderscreech
Is the storage hangar accessible for viewing? .
@@300guy No, the Museum it is at is the National Museum of the United States Airforce. They cover all the way back to the Wright brothers to modern. It does cover the gap mentioning that they were the US Army Air Corp and US Army Air Forces. It had a transition late in the war. After the war they became their own branch but the Army Air Corp/Forces pretty much operated independently through the war but in a combined effort with the rest of the Army and the other branches where they could. Since the Army didn't operate as much in the Pacific except for the Army Air Corp/Force and some engineering battalions and garrison places like Philippines.
The twin canopy must have been the concept for the T.V. Batmobile.
Wait a minute...I thought I saw an XB-43 at The Silverhill Restoration facility in Maryland back in the 90's. I remember The Swoose sitting in cradles there as well.
You saw correctly. Silver Hill was more interesting than any other aircraft museum. It also had the Horten jet and a complete Black Widow. What they did not show was what’s tucked away in the other buildings. Here I was to understand several complete WW2 planes.
Did you know that the actress Swoosie Kurtz was named after the Swoose?
Yep, her father was one of it's pilots during the war and loved it so much he actually named his daughter after it, he was the pilot for the general that had it as his personal transport aircraft.
Oh, those weird, wacky and wonderful first generation jets...
You have made me curious about Douglas and those bug-eyed canopies, since the idea was also used in the C-74 Globemaster.
Perfect for divorced husband/ wife pilots.
@@offshoretomorrow3346 It was the 1940's you couldn't show a pilot and co-pilot sleep... I mean working in the same cockpit.
Interesting main gear stowage also.
@@offshoretomorrow3346 HA! 😂
Love this thing and am very happy to finally see it join your catalogue Ed
16 x .50" guns... truly the Browning lobby was strong. :D
Luftwaffe would regret head on attacks
Indeed. Either they never heard of 20mm cannon or they were intent on shooting up troops and planes on the ground.
@@stevepirie8130 The USAAF and USN had a real hard on for "full on .50" right untill the Korean war because, unlike the RAF, Luftwaffe and (to a lesser extend) the soviets, they never faced heavy bombers, so the .50 was good enough.
Sweet 16
@@jlvfr
The .50 still would have been good enough for heavy bombers had the Axis used them, the issue isn't the size of the aircraft it was the speed, because speed increases the range at with you're engaging other aircraft, what forced US fighter's to eventually switch to cannons wasn't that the aircraft they were shooting at got bigger, it's that they got faster, because once again faster means increased range.
The speed of fighter's, both those shooting and being shot at, at the dawn of the jet age created just about the limit in range that multiple .50's would be effective, and they were still effective as the F86's record in Korea clearly demonstrated, once the jet age was well under way missile's took over for downing bombers, even though the US never actually had to use them in the role of shooting down bombers missile's, not guns, are what would have been used for that in the jet age, which leaves fighter's as the only thing a gun would be used for and still US fighter's switched to cannons, and it wasn't because of size, .50's would still take care of a fighter, but not at the increased range they'd have been getting shot at as a product of increased speed.
The six to eight .50 cal's that most US fighter's had in WW2 wouldn't have had any problems taking care of heavy bombers had the Axis used them, between the number of .50's and the firing rate of the aircraft version they were like buzz saws to whatever aircraft they were shooting at, they had no problem ripping wings off, smashing engine's and especially killing crewmen, plus they had the added advantage of greatly increased firing time over cannons.
During the war the US was playing around with possibly adopting cannons to US fighter's but the very fact that they didn't is proof the .50's were more than adequate, in the middle of doing it someone wisely pointed out that between the fact that they had no problem bringing down any aircraft they came up against, including 4 engine aircraft like the German Condor which was actually the first aircraft shot down by a US pilot in Europe, along with others being shot down by Royal Navy pilots flying Wildcats (Martlet) that only had four .50 cal's in them, and the fact that production would have been interrupted for no good reason they wisely chose not to pursue it further, even more proof is the fact that the A36 Apache version of the P51 was a production aircraft that North America Aviation could easily have kept it's 20mm cannon wings sans it's air brakes in production for the P51 after it'd been developed but the USAAF didn't want cannons for their fighter's, they knew that multiple .50's with their increased firing time was better, aircraft aren't armor plated like tanks, in WW2 the .50 cal was more than capable of chewing up any aircraft in the sky.
As pointed out earlier even at the dawn of the jet age in the F86 .50 cal's were more than capable of doing the job, between them no longer having to be put in wings which eliminated convergence and increased rage, like the P38's nose mounted guns that demonstrated that configurations advantage during the war, plus the adoption of radar augmented gun sights and the even more increased firing rate of the aircraft version of the .50 cal the air war over Korea proved the .50 was still capable, the F86 wasn't purpose built just to dogfight MIG's over Korea, it was designed with having to take down large Soviet bombers in mind and the designer's of it had no issues with knowing the .50 cal would have gotten the job done.
Some people seem to think that countries like England and Germany selecting cannons for their fighter's during WW2 is some kind of proof that cannons were superior, it most certainly was not, the record that US aircraft armed with .50 cal's amassed during WW2 and even Korea is proof that for some reason they simply choose to ignore, further proof they choose to ignore is the dismal record of 20mm cannons in WW2, German fighter pilots complained continuously that 20mm wasn't powerful enough, the astronomical amount of US aircraft that returned from mission's with multiple 20mm hits is more than proof of that and is exactly why the Germans had gotten to the point where they'd designed under wing pods that were troublesome and reduced a fighter's airspeed from the increase in drag for their 30mm cannons shows how desperate they were to field a gun more effective than a 20mm, and when it comes to the RAF who can blame them for switching to cannons after starting the war with guns on their aircraft that fired what's nothing more than a deer hunting cartridge, that they skipped over the .50 cal to go straight to cannons is understandable after having made a blunder like that but it certainly isn't proof that the .50 cal wasn't a better choice at the time, it's only proof that they over reacted to a mistake they made in the first place, and that was thinking that a rifle cartridge that while having been sufficient in WW1 when aircraft were made of wood and cloth and were much slower would have been adequate in an age of metal skinned aircraft that were three times faster, it'll always remain a complete mystery to me why just before WW2 they selected a rifle cartridge gun as their primary aircraft weapon in both fighter's and the defensive guns of their bombers, it's for the very reason that their bombers couldn't even come close to defending themselves is why they switched to night bombing, their losses early on when they first tried daylight bombing were far greater than any losses US bombers suffered during the war, some of those mission's had up to 70% losses, and it was because the German fighter's could engage them and still break off their attack outside of the range of their .303 defensive guns.
Just because they overreacted to a mistake they made early on isn't proof of anything, the .50 cal as an aircraft gun in WW2 and even beyond into the early jet age was perfectly capable of getting the job done and it's record is proof of that.
To modern eyes, a weird looking thing, but I do enjoy the aesthetics of a lot of the really early " transitional " jet aircraft...the double bubble canopy is cool!
Certainly the nose and canopy are ripe for a kit-bash concept or novel 'spaceship' design.
Ah, the Arado 234! One of the prettiest planes of the war to me. Most definitely the prettiest from the Germans.
I agree.
Yeah, I agree with that. It must have seemed like science fiction to the allied pilots at the time, always too fast, always too high to catch. Unless when in the landing pattern, of course ☺️
I disagree :) I think the Me 262 is the prettiest: like a shark, the most beautiful of predators in the animal kingdom :)
@@janvanhaaster2093 Yeah 262 looks fast sat on the runway
I still think the prettiest plane of all time was the Blackburn Blackburn.
I knew about the mix master, never knew there was a jet version of it. The varieties of American experimental aircraft seems endless, always something new (that's old). Love it! 👍🏻
The jet survives, in the Smithsonian collection. I remember seeing it in storage in Maryland in 1983...EDIT, according to Ed she's now at NMUSAF, which makes sense, as Dayton has a large collection of Air Force experimentals, an entire hangar being devoted to just those. If you like planes and haven't been to Dayton, go. But leave two days minimum, because that place is VAST.
@@stevetournay6103
Someone who was just at Dayton put a post on this video saying it's still not on display but can confirm it's in storage after having seen it there.
One of the very interesting experimental American aircraft, but a point-defence fighter in this case, was the Northrop MX-324, a demonstrator for the planned XP-79 interceptor. First pure rocket-propelled aircraft to fly in the USA. With the pilot flying it in the prone position, it looked like something out of a sci-fi book, the clean lines only marred by the fixed tricycle undercarriage. It was estimated that by the pilot flying prone, he’d still be able to operate the tiny craft under a +12g load and several successful flights were made. The rocket powered XP-79 was aesthetically one of the most beautiful and aerodynamically most efficient aircraft designed in WW2. Once the Achilles heel of rocket fighters ~ endurance ~ was finally acknowledged as insurmountable, they stuck a couple of Westinghouse 19-B axial flow turbojets in it instead as the XP-79B. It flew once in September 1945 for 14 minutes but at 7000’ something went wrong and although the pilot, Harry Crosby, was seen to bale out at around 2000’ he was struck by his aircraft which was stuck in a spin and killed. That also killed the XP-79 and (unfortunately) was one of the first nails in the coffin of Jack Northrop’s flying wing concepts.
Another American fighter that never made it past wind tunnel model was the Lockheed L-133. To be powered by two of Lockheed’s own L-1000 axial flow jet engines (with afterburners) it featured a blended wing canard design with a planned speed well in excess of 600mph. It was rejected by the USAAF in 1942 on the grounds that it was ‘too advanced’ !! As a result of this cancellation, some of the work would be used in the P-80 design, which was still inferior to the L-133.
Instead of the beauty that was the L-133 Starjet, America got the Bell P-59 Airacomet instead ~ a bit like promising yourself a sleek sports-car but ending up with a panel-van instead.
As an aviation enthusiast, I really enjoy your content. Please keep your interesting and on point content coming! 👌🏼
What about doing an episode on the b-45 tornado? Its one of my favorite first gen jet bombers.
RAF crews flew night Recon Mission deep into sovietunion with RB-45 Tornados, the Planes were USAF Tornados with British Markings / Roundels, if i remember well it was late 40s or early 50.
It's incredible to think that within the decade the B52 was in the air, Did that not start with a tandem cockpit before switching to side by side? I once had an observers book for 1953 which included various fun machines long forgotten.
The B-52 did indeed start with a tandem cockpit on the XB- and YB- test models. It was switched to a conventional flight deck when experience with the B-47 Stratojet revealed that the small crew permitted by the tandem configuration meant a very heavy workload on the pilot, copilot, and bombardier. The B-52 has a seven-person crew.
Curtiss Lemay wanted the crew to be together to fight the airplane home or at least out of enemy territory. He knew the stories of how one pilot steered with throttles while the other flew and got out of Germany.
The Jetmaster, the grandad of Master Blaster. Thanks for a video on an interesting early jet!
Can comment on someone else's comment but can't make my own original.
I think one of the big advantages jets brought was high performance on a cheaper fuel.
The XB-42 Mixmaster is one of my favorite planes😁 Do it, do it, do it
Such a classic name.
Nicely done....ok, the '43 looked like a dustbin narrowed at both ends but you gotta start somewhere....and we, in 2024, are always wise after the event. The Jetmaster was a solid start to the Jet Age.
For those interested, Steve Ginter is getting ready to release a book covering both the -42 and -43 aircraft sometime in November 2024 as part of his Air Force Legends series of books. The Mixmaster I believe set a transcontinental record of some sort in testing and to my understanding had very few problems despite its complexity. America didn't embrace the contra prop idea the way the Brits did, but the Mixmaster was supposedly a good aircraft. Hopefully Ed covers the Mixmaster soon. Great video, really appreciate seeing the American experimental types being covered. Cheers!
I wonder how much earlier the Canberra might have flown if the pressure was still on? Maybe 1947?
A beautiful and very successful aircraft. Those were the days when us Brits could make still design and make our own aircraft!
0:04 Oovaavoo 🕊️ Can’t help but think of Vic n Bob whenever Ed mentions Arado 😂
Way to go, Ed. I just love your work.if the metallurgy and electronics and understanding of high speed aerodynamics had been developed by 1935, we’d have not lost thousands of bombers and hundreds of thousands of men in the skies over Germany in the war.
You have brought a new aircraft to my attention. Thanks!!!
04:18 Should have named it the Cicada LOL
Damn I love the twin canopies great stuff mate thanks I really appreciate what you do😎😎😎❤️❤️❤️
Jetmaster. Such an inspiring name. 5:40 Might I submit Kermit as a substitute name?
I seen it when while on a tour of the restoration hangers just before the Memphis belle was about ready to go on display. If i remember correctly it had its wings off.
The XB42 story is fascinating, the design carried a B29 bombload with the range of a B17 and the speed of a P38 fighter.
At the 6:02 mark you made me laugh out LOUD, albeit inadvertently. With your British accent I heard: "the engine shit some of it's compressor blades...." when of course, you were saying: "shed".... Thanks for ALL your great videos and for a laugh now and again!
Either phrase would be accurate!
@@mahbriggs Indeed, both would do!
To those unfamiliar, the Mixmaster had two Allison engines. The driveshafts connected to the tail mounted gear box. Though it was one gear box, the gearing for each prop was independent.
The plane had excellent performance for a bomber topping out at 400mph + on ~2800 hp. It’s a lesson in clean aerodynamic design.
It could do the same job as a B29.
As usual, very well done !!
Great video, Ed...👍
There were double bubbles on the C-74, and they were awkward so the conventional cabin was retrofitted and used from the start on the c124
Hi would love to see a video on vak-191 B
I saw an artist's rendering of the XP-43 Mixmaster, and it had four 37mm cannons in the nose. 16 .50cals ain't nothing to sneeze at either. 😂😂😂
I for one eagerly await more details on the Mixmaster. Also the B-45 is just so... perfectly dieselpunk/atompunk
What provision was made for crew bale-out? It looks like the crew would have every chance to go right down the engine intakes. Could they escape down through the belly like in Douglas F3D Skyknight?
Hi Ed. I was aware of this peculiar aircraft but the B47 was always going to kill it . Thanks Ed
The "double bubble" idea sounds like that car that Homer Simpson designed, but head-on it looks like a pair of eyes. Painting a shark mouth on the front of the attack variant might actually look scary.
The fuselage is at NMUSAF, along with the XB-42, but the wings are, well, missing.
As far as I am aware, Martin Baker (ejection seats) are still using a Meteor as a test bed. According to 'Wicky' the German jet engines had a lifespan of around 33 minutes, with another 15 added if it came down in one piece. The pilots were told to do a dead stick landing to prolong engine life. In other words, for all intents and purposes, the Meteor was the FIRST usable jet.
Sounds like a reasonable argument. And if you what to know a little more about Martin Baker:
ua-cam.com/video/L3QBB78TLv8/v-deo.html
Thank you for another informative and entertaining video. Please consider doing a video about The Beechcraft Company's attempt at a large ground attack aircraft. It was called the XA-38 Grizzly. A plane powered by two B-29 engines with a 75MM gun in its nose. Beechcraft did more than make the Model 18 during WWII.
Jive Bunny : The XB-42 story....
Looking forward to that one
The XB-47 makes me want to yell c'mon guys! Sweep something! Anything! It's a JET!
Mix Master? I thought that was a margarita blender...
Follow it with a verb and it's your late 80s rap name. I'm Mix Master Fast.
Mix Master Mike from The Beastial Boys.
No, a cement truck.
Hmmm, the example shown at 4:40 is a photo reconnaissance variant with provision for vertical, dicing and oblique cameras.
Love this stuff.. the B-45 definitely looks better
I thought it was a lovely aircraft and I'm glad the one still survived the scrap heap as most X planes ended up on.
Shame…it’s in the warehouse with Die Glock, the captured Martian war machines, and the Ark…
And the body of Ruprecht Kroenen next to a large clockwork key.
We've got top men on it.
Who?
Top...men.
As you can see at 2:04 the Mixmaster was also at one point upgraded to mixed propulsion (highly appropriate, given its name) with the contra-rotating pusher props retained but with a small turbojet hung under each wing. This was the XB-42A.
As for replacing the side-by-side canopies with a single canopy for both crew? That's what was done with the 2nd XB-42 prototype. It doesn't seem to have ever been done with either XB-43 prototype. Probably because by the time they worked out that the single canopy was a better setup, it was clear that the XB-43 would only be a testbed rather than an operation combat aircraft, so it would've been a waste of time to make changes like that.
Just a thought .. the single vertical stabilizer would not have worked so well with a central shared canopy if ejection seats were intended.
The plywood nose...so that was why the front end of "Versatile II" looked like part of a dilapidated Chris-Craft when I saw it in storage at the Smithsonian decades ago...fascinating!
Love these planes that didn't make it videos. Have you looked into the good looking Curtiss-Wright XF-87 Blackhawk yet? Would like to see a video on that one.
Not yet, but it is on the list.
I was looking at that fuselage and saw a family resemblance to the mixmaster before mentioning it...
Dear Ed,
Martin XB-51 please.
Sincerely,
A Fan.
Some of the late German aircraft designs looked really great.
Maybe the bloke who designed their uniforms leant a hand.
It belongs in a museum, instead it's in a warehouse next to a crate marked "Do not open under pain of face melting"
From the side, it somewhat resembles a carp.
It looks as though the main gear arrangement heavily influenced the Navy A-3 Skywarrior and the Air Force B-66 Destroyer aircraft.
Looks almost like inspiration for a Star Wars ship.
Douglas also looked at a civilian version of the prop version. Probably a case of we've spent the time engineering this new airframe. Is there anything else we could use it for.
Curtiss XP-60 and Hughes H-1 Racer please
Could you do a video on the history of the General Electric/Allison J35 jet engine?
I’ve never seen an undercarriage retract like this. Was wondering what the massive holes in the fuselage were for.
And Britain had the Canberra designed 1944, first flight 1947
The Mixmaster is possibly the stupidest yet coolest name for an airplane. I suppose they could have named the Jetmaster the Japmaster, which would have caused some interesting modern reactions
Ercoupes! Do Ercoupes next!
PS: The Mixmaster must be among the oddest names ever for an aircraft of that era.
B-45 was the US's first operational jet bomber.
7:00 the B45 looks a lot like and IL-28 like really similar
6:55 is that another X aircraft sitting next to the Xb-43 in the background?
At 2:26, 2:34, 2:45.3:01,3:15 etc are those side by side canopy designs on the Jetmaster or is that a different aircraft?
excellent
I will keep an eye out for tech drawings of this aircraft with SIXTEEN .50 cal. Vibration? ammo storage? Hard to imagine.
I will be very interested to hear what you find. The 16 gun thing made me raise my eyebrows, and I nearly didn't include it because I thought it unlikely. But all the (few) sources say that is the case. I do wonder if this is the classic "fact" getting into the history and simply being repeated. So very keen to know if actual technical drawings can tell is for sure. Let us know if you can confirm/deny it 😃
That cruising speed is double what an unloaded B-17 could do with the trottles pinned to the stops.
And it could carry 4x the bombs? Jesus.
Where did you get the 4x bombs from? I thought Ed said max bombload was 8,000lb. Standard loadout on most combat aircraft is around 50% of the max possible, so it’s safe to assume the range quoted (1100 miles = 550 mile mission radius) was with a “combat load” of around 4,000 lb, I believe B17s were safely flight tested at 18,000 lb bombload but performance fell off the chart and so standard load was 4,000-8,000 lb generally flown at 22,000-25,000 ft over 1800 miles depending upon mission criteria.
4:21 So cute. It even has eyebrows on the eyes.
It's a shame this thing was cancelled, a production B-43 (or even the original B-42) could've been useful in Korea if the A-26 Invader's performance in that conflict is any indicator.
...I won't hold my breath....
How about covering WW2 allied jet fighters? 🏴
A British guy is on the telephone for you Mr Douglas, a Mr Teddy Petter. He wants to know, do we want the box that his new bomber came in back?
Which lived on as B66/Navy Whale
Looks like an Arado AR-196.
Never heard of this one
There is only one suggestion for this in the War Thunder Forums way back 2015. Somebody make an updated suggestion ASAP.
I like this plane! I think the undercarriage sets it off for me. Double canopy, despite being impractical, has a certain draw to it. 😄
5:39 ... That doubly canopy makes it look insectoid. Bug-eyed bombers.
It was a design idea deployed on some American jet inspired concept/show cars 😎.
Did he say 15 50 caliber machine guns? I know the U.S. loved the .50, but 15 of them? I must have mistunderstood him.
Never seen a double bubble set up on any other plane.
Why did they think two separate canopies was a good idea?
Time and cost issues lead to prototypes being built with ALOT of "off the shelf parts". Had production started it would likely have been changed
Designing and producing a new large bubble canopy actually had a lot of lead time.
16(!) .50 cals. There is overkill and then there is the Jetmaster.
with those 2 separate cockpits the pilot cannot talk with his other buddy pilot :(
The guppy of Doom..
Interesting rundown, thank you. I guess clearly it was perfectly functional, but to my eyes that tail looks all wrong...
Looks like the Arado
Ed unlike Australia with the RAAF the US never referred to the Army Air Forces as double A F, always A A F or USAAF.
I am the Jetmaster. Are you the bombkeeper?
Must admit, I’ve either completely forgotten about this aircraft (the older I get, the more it happens) or have never seen it. I think it’s the former. It rings a very muffled bell. A 4t bomb capacity is nothing.
Cool.
A rear gun on a jet seems to show a lack of confidence in those engines
Looks like the son of a B-25, sorta-kinda.
4:20 and 5:40. Does anyone else see a sleepy frog in these pictures?
This thing is so deeply ugly. I love it