The F7F were designed to operate off the new Midway class carriers. No one expected the war to end in 1945. Golden gate by 48 was the saying during the Pacific war.
A thing you need to understand is that the USA wanted to go over to 20mm cannons even before they entered WW2. They bought the blueprints for 20mm Hispano cannons, manufactured a lot of them and a buttload of ammo. Having done that, they tested them. Spoiler alert: You test the prototypes, not the production variant. Turns out the chamber was too long and the guns were horribly unreliable. Solutions: a) Re-manufacture the chamber or shim it. Or b) Muck about with other parts and hope for the best. The USA went for b) and American fighters used 50-cal 'not enough gun' into the Korean war.
It was also found that the .50s were broadly sufficient in most cases.. I mean, the Japanese and Brits were running like .30 call machine guns for a long time
@@chickenfishhybrid44 both Japan and the UK moved over to primarily 20mm and higher by 1940-41. 50s were just about competitive, but the optimal caliber tests after WW2 judged them to be 1/4 as effective per round, 1/3 per gun. This is less efficient given weight of guns and ammunition. The USA repeatedly tried to make 20mm guns work in its aircraft in WW2, underlining that 50s were lagging. Thankfully, they were available and equal best in class, else the USA would have had serious issues.
The Brits advised on 2 vital modifications to the 20mm Hispano to adopt: the shortened chamber (2mm) and the triple wire return spring that the Americans opted not to incorporate. This resulted in frequent 'lightly struck cap' stoppages. We tried to help.........!
A big part of the problems with the P38 and likely also the P49 was its COST. Greg's Airplanes goes into this pretty extensively covering most of the key aircraft of WW II and usually mentioning the cost per unit (If I remember right P38 was over twice the cost of other key fighters like P47 and definitely much more than P51 which was the best deal of all). The P38 was popular with the command, who jockeyed to obtain as many of this airplane as they could get (many wound up in the Pacific Theater where their range was a great plus and they did not need to travel at over 20k ft altitude). Also, the P38 had complaints around the temperature in the center nacelle with the pilot and controls. Apparently the heating was not ideal, and thus the P38 had a far better time down in the Pacific where it did not have to act as bomber escort at high altitude. P38 was deemed the best gun platform as far as easy sighting of target of all these fighters due to the centerline placement of the weapons.
Wow, I never realized the technology back then had already reached these heights. Your explanations are super clear-thanks for sharing! I’m a huge fan of unusual experimental aircraft myself...
Charles Lindburg was sent to the Pacific and showed crews how to adjust the engine to get better fuel economy while making the P38 even faster than Lockheed had promised.
He should have been decorated for doing the fuel adjustments considering that raid to get Admiral Yamamoto (pearl harbour architect) wouldn't have happened without the Lindberg fix.
@@BenjaminRowe-hc7uo I think he was only in the Pacific as an Observer and not as a combatant, IIR, correct me if I'm wrong on this, although it turns out he flew some missions and downed a few Zero's and stuff. It was once gossip and word got out about it he was ordered back to the 'States. He was there in a civilian capacity and not a member of the armed forces which may have have made him unable to receive any military award even if they wanted to. I quite agree on your sentiments though.
@@Thenogomogo-zo3un that whole story of Lindbergh as a civilian is due to his pro nazi activity before the war. The president wanted him out of the military during the war.
0:14 starting a documentary with one of the best modern waifu really sets the mood here. Then again, Power was known to be anaemic when she used too much blood for her attacks and honestly with the fate of the “Lightning but bigger” XP-58 a weapons platform being supersized most often results in a more lethargic performance. Also, while we’re on the topic of power, the turbocharged Allisons are more than adequate for the mission profiles of the P-38. No amount of power can really fix the compressibility issues NACA and Lockheed had to deal with. The late model P-38s go beyond 410mph while still maintaining reasonable fuel economy, which coupled with Lindbergh’s fuel trim tricks can really push their limits. Merry Christmas, Mr. IHYLS!
Reminds me of the DH Hornet, which had two 100-series Merlins that made 2000 HP each. Eric Brown said it was way overpowered (it could do aerobatics with one prop feathered), but for a design that went into production in 1945, it was relatively successful, with almost 400 produced.
I think he is reading from official reports for most of that. I could be wrong, but I kept thinking of additional down the line upgrades that would be required like the heat shielding and it seemed like it was pretty thorough, and since he mentioned them upgrading the heat shielding, I got the sense it wasn't him guessing.
@builder396 with something for carriers, single-engined performance is more the issue, though. Fairey handled it differently with various WW2 designs by having two engines in the fuselage, culminating with the Gannet with the Double Mamba. Although a single engine, the halves could be turned off individually which helped loiter. In all cases, no asymmetric thrust, but at the expense of complexity.
Came to say this- I am not here to give him a hard time about it though. When people know the word but don’t pronounce it correctly, it’s because they read it. More people should read!
@@Metalwolf765I hear you, BUT the c comes before an an and in every language I can think of, that means the c is hard. It doesn’t have a cedilla under it, so it’s hard.
The bigger error is the use of “mil” to mean millimeter when referring to the cannon size. A mil is one thousandth of an inch, NOT a millimeter. A 30 mil cannon is really puny when you consider that 40 mil is a millimeter!
09:06 if anyone is wondering, I think the narrator of Rock and Roll racing said that 'in another time zone' when a racer got exploded or got in last in the race...something like that
A former friend of mine once built a radio-controlled model airplane and put an engine on it that was twice as powerful than what was recommended for the kit. He was a rather extreme person. His plane did fly, but it was on the verge of going out of control as I recall. That was only 40 years ago.
Someone in the middle east aquired Focke Wulf 190s with Junker bomber engines (...or Jumo 213) after WW2. They had problems with flipping the plane while still being on the ground.
The more I watch the channel, the more I think The Narrator has a bunch of shower thoughts and pointless but amusing stories that he wants to tell and this is simply the vehicle for that. Whatever the case, I'm on board.
That R-2160 engine looks amazing. Whatever happened to it? All I can find is that it was used in a few prototype aircraft and then forgotten - there must be a more to its story.
Terminology: a strong engine is one that can survive being hit by a hammer, one with more output is more powerful. Calling an engine stronger seems to have crept in recently, possibly from automatic translation of German documents.
Dictionary definition: "having the power to move heavy weights or perform other physically demanding tasks." There are multiple definitions of strong so I give IHYLS a pass on this.
The P-38 itself was never allowed to reach its full potential. It would have been possible to build a P-38 with twin 2,000 HP Allison F series V-1710 engines, and twin four blade 13'-6" Hamilton Standard high activity paddle props in early 1944. Much of the compressibility problem could have been resolved with the improved wing roots and other modifications developed by NACA. The top speed would have exceeded 450 MPH in level flight, critical Mach would have been 0.72-0.75.
@@RedneckSpacemanMerlins were already on high-demand for P-51s. Not many US aircraft used it (i think only Mustangs did) Besides, the Allison did prove to be the better engine later in the war. Went from the underdog to the master.
Amazing stealth. Absolutely no one in the entire World thinks the Alison engines were ever better than the Rolls Royce engines. The Pratt and Whitney radials OTOH were magnificent.
@@Samuel-hd3cp Wrong. The brit centric non-factual books say the RR Merlin was touched by God. That's just wrong. It's the times the moving parts and makes less power.
Since you mentioned your fav..Mine is the F-104..just so long as it has those pods on the ends of the wings. IMHO It is the most Sci-Fi looking fighter plane !! It just doesn't look right without those things on the wing tips. Are they fuel tanks?? I honestly don't know! The F-104 is featured in an episode of Star Trek!?
Man… It that time frame? They were looking at everything and Anything that could stomp a mudhole in Everybody. I can’t hate them for it…I would too…if I was in an active war with multiple major powers. Crazy stuff mate! Great vid! Thanks! 😎👍
I have never seen anyone refence that game. maybe it wasn't as obscure as I thought. I can still hear the announcer saying that in my head to this day.
So what's wrong with that???? There are thousands of pictures of the Brits doing the same thing especially with the wildcat, hellcat, Corsair, TBM avenger, does that bother you??? So it's what's good for me is not good for thee!!!
The F4 is an example of an aircraft that required delicate handling because the engine had so much power. If the aircraft in this video made it into production, it may have also had issues that were difficult to handle because the engines had so much power relative to its airframe.
3:36 also well after the Fokker G-1 has matured well into a nearly perfect twin engine 'hunter/cruiser' type fighter. The type was built in limited numbers from 1936 onwards and because of WW2 it's production and development halted but it had some serious influence on designs like this, as you'll see in it's specs and features. Funnily enough the Fokker G-1 was a dead end and would have not been useful after 41' as a frontline unit except for maybe Indonesia for exactly the same reasons as why this airplane never got anywhere
If for this, I strongly believe the XP-50 was the better option by far. A smaller and lighter airframe with two smaller engines that, while underpowered on their own, made good power combined. Small airframe with small engines = cheaper. And if you thing about it, it wouldn't have been hard to make a R-1830 equipped variant with more power later on, if the 1820 wasnt enough to keep up.
Could probably have been made to fit, but there is the issue of availability - only ~6,000 Griffons were built. I am not sure if there were plans to build the Griffon in the US, but if there were, production engines woudln't come off the line until very late in the war. If the I-1430s actually developed 1,600hp, or they had sustitude V-1710s of 1,400hp-1,600hp the XP-49 may have improved upon the P-38's performance.
The answer to that may be two fold: * when the Packards became available, these were already assigned in high numbers for the P-51. * since the P-38 had excellent turbo superchargers to feed the Allisons, not much more would to be gained with the Packards.
@@charlesrousseau6837 Packard started building 20-series Merlins first - single stage, 2 speed. They were fitted to the P-40F and P-40L, and the bulk exported to the UK.
The turbocharged Allison, with proper maintenance, rigging, and fuel, is lighter, smaller, more powerful, and more reliable than the Merlin. And more fuel efficient. The F series V-1710 Allison was capable of 3400 RPM, at 80" of manifold pressure, for an output of 2,000 HP. The USAAF intentionally down rated the Allison. They were however rigged in the field for maximum output when 150 octane fuel was available. The G series was available in mid 1944, but the USAAF decided against buying it. It was even more powerful.
@@AlanRoehrich9651 They were capable of 2,000hp at the end of the war. As was the Merlin, which coudl deliver 2,000hp at 81 inHg MAP. Ltae model E and F series and G series engines were rated for 3,200rpm. Maybe some G series were capable of 3,400rpm. A single stage, single speed V-1710 is slightly lighter than a single stage, single speed Merlin, maybe 45kg (100lb) lighter than a single stage, two speed Merlin. In P-38s prior to the P-38J, the inetrcooler was installed in the leading edge of the wing. This restricted the power that could be made, even when improved versions of the V-1710 were installed. Including the weight of the turbocharger and associated piping, the V-1710 was similar in weight to the 2 stage Merlins, but the weight of those varied quite a bit depending on accessories fitted. The turbocharged V-1710 was indeed more fuel efficient than the Merlin. That is partly due to the advantage of turbocharging, and also that early versions of the engine used a higher compression ratio. The V-1710 had a smaller frontal area than the Merlin, largely because of using downdraft carburettor, rather than the Merlin's updraft carburettor. However, the V-1710 was longer than the equivalent Merlin, and when coupled with the turbocharger took up a lot more space than a 2 stage Merlin. Prior to the war, US engines did not have a combat or war emergency rating. This was introduced in 1941 or 1942, so numbers prior to that may not be directly comparable.
I think there was such a problem in "The Flight of the Phoenix"? It's true that in theory the airframe was supposed to have the right balance, but they were afraid that the engine would tear it to shreds? It's been a while since I watched it as a kid, so I don't remember exactly...
A great movie. I recall that the Phoenix was a very makeshift amateur construction and capt. Towns had serious doubts about the ability of the aircraft to withstand the 2000 hp R-2800 power.
As always, there is the power to weight ratio to be considered with any aircraft developed. It's OK wanting more power, but more power requires bigger and heavier engines so it makes the plane heavier, so the plane needs more power. A vicious Catch 22.
I think the guys that had all the X planes chopped up for scrap should have been put in our local wrecking yards car smashing thing back in the 60s. It was a 10 X 24 foot 2' thick slab of concrete and steel on a hinge. Car parts would fly for 40'
There was this thing called the XP_38A that was built as a test bed for pressurization for the XP-49. Lockheed had experience in pressurization so that was not a problem.
Every hotrodder knows that just throwing more engine at something sounds great, but can end badly. If you can get the power down, then you get to worry about the engine being powerful enough to bend the frame. I'm sure it's the same concept with aircraft.
Doing great, thanks for asking and Mele Kalikimaka from Hawai’i! The XP-49 makes me think of the 1969 Plymouth ‘Cuda 440 (and it’s sister, the Dodge Dart 440). Too much engine ruined what was a perfectly fine and sporty car with the 340 c.i.d. engine
If Jeremy were an aircraft engineer in ww2 speed and power would have been priority and we would've broken the sound barrier much earlier!!!!! At the cost of many test pilots lives!
Over or under powered refers to the engine. The armorrament strength woukd be described as being under gunned or up gunned . Not both aspects of a plane being described in dame way as that would confuse people unless given more detail
Ironically, both the hs129 and the ju87G were offensively overpowered, and severely underpowered with respect to their engines. Like a mere mortal trying to lift Thor's hammer...
No. Why would they? Just junk the US engine programs and replace them with British engines. What sane country that had the scientific and industrial capability would do that? Only in your fantasy world I imagine.
Bowl-ton Paul, repeat after me, Bowl-ton Paul Bowl-ton Paul, repeat after me, Bowl-ton Paul Bowl-ton Paul, repeat after me, Bowl-ton PaulBowl-ton Paul, repeat after me, Bowl-ton Paul
Thankyou for the interesting short documentary. I bet that the more powerful engines in the XP-49 reduced the range considerably. BTW the AI voice is pretty irritating.
So you are saying that you need to find a crane capable of lifting 101lbs? 😢😂 I am going to disagree with your presentation a bit. I think I get what you were intending to do, but I think in terms of setting and balancing requirements and so forth it is more of a case of: 1) Role: What kind of role does this piece of equipment fill? For example you mentioned that armament. Armament doesn't matter if you are a U2, because a U2 uses altitude as its primary means or defense. 2) Task: What are we expecting this piece of equipment to do in that role? Doctrine: In our doctrine how do we approach that kind of task utilizing a piece of equipment in that role? Do we need to update our doctrine? (Do we prefer .50 cal or cannons for example, how are they being deployed, etc.) 3) Projections: what kind of oppositions do we expect this piece of equipment in that particular role to need to be able to overcome to achieve that task utilizing our existing/projected doctrine based on the enemy's current rate of progression? For example, is the enemy up-armoring their planes, and will a .50 be able to reliably overmatch that projected armor or do we need to arm it with something more powerful? This also applies to upgradeability. Will adding a heavier armament require a full redesign, or can we scale it's armament based on need? Also, when do we project we will need this piece of equipment by? If you are intending to use the X-49 for a specific application at a particular lrojjected point of time then you make compromises to get somehting with that capability on the field, but if it turns out it is not necessary, then maybe you scrap the current project and apply the lessons learned to a clean sheet deisgn that does not require so many sacrifices. Reason for Difference: We essentially get to the same points in the end, in terms of balancing, but I am guessing, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the X49 was intended as an escort for the B-29 or sonething like that, hence the need for the cabin to be pressurized and some of the other requirements. I think you said the military's interest level changed in 1943, which is around the time we started to become confident that we were going to win the war, and by that point it was pretty clear that the B-29 would not be facing significantly upgraded opposition, especially against Japan. As such, maybe we don't absolutely need a fighter capable of matching the B-29's operational altitude for escort missions. Maybe I am wrong on that, but it seemed odd to require a pressurized cockpit, and then suddenly for that feature to no longer matter, unless that feature was projected to be surplus to requirements. I think your analogy still works either way. You were just operating under a doctrine of wanting to use a single storage container for your cards, that needed to be updated based on its resulting lifting requirements and/or your doctrine needs to change with regards to where you store your cards so you don't have to lift them. Either that or maybe what needs to be upgraded is the owner of the cards to one that who is capable of lifting 101lbs and who is not a little girlie man (meant with a Hanz and Franz accent) ... Watch out if your storage container starts regularly giving you suspicious looks and if a crane capable of lifting a human mysteriously shows up at your door one day. 😅😉 Merry Christmas, and thanks for the great content.
Grumman's 'design 41' visual appearance makes one imagine the beginnings of the F7F Tigercat.
It was that.
XF5F Skyrocket lead to the XP-50, XP-50 lead to the XP-65, and the XP-65 lead to the F7F Tigercat.
@@FirstDagger XP-65 and XF&F-1 were contemporaneous, both deriving from the same design studies.
F7F does not get the love it deserves by WWII nuts.
The F7F were designed to operate off the new Midway class carriers. No one expected the war to end in 1945. Golden gate by 48 was the saying during the Pacific war.
A thing you need to understand is that the USA wanted to go over to 20mm cannons even before they entered WW2. They bought the blueprints for 20mm Hispano cannons, manufactured a lot of them and a buttload of ammo. Having done that, they tested them. Spoiler alert: You test the prototypes, not the production variant. Turns out the chamber was too long and the guns were horribly unreliable. Solutions: a) Re-manufacture the chamber or shim it. Or b) Muck about with other parts and hope for the best. The USA went for b) and American fighters used 50-cal 'not enough gun' into the Korean war.
It was also found that the .50s were broadly sufficient in most cases.. I mean, the Japanese and Brits were running like .30 call machine guns for a long time
I think the USA said "the Brits have tested these and we've used the same dimensions, right?"
@@chickenfishhybrid44 both Japan and the UK moved over to primarily 20mm and higher by 1940-41. 50s were just about competitive, but the optimal caliber tests after WW2 judged them to be 1/4 as effective per round, 1/3 per gun. This is less efficient given weight of guns and ammunition. The USA repeatedly tried to make 20mm guns work in its aircraft in WW2, underlining that 50s were lagging. Thankfully, they were available and equal best in class, else the USA would have had serious issues.
The Brits advised on 2 vital modifications to the 20mm Hispano to adopt: the shortened chamber (2mm) and the triple wire return spring that the Americans opted not to incorporate. This resulted in frequent 'lightly struck cap' stoppages. We tried to help.........!
Isn’t this just because the Americans changed or refused to change something that cause all the issues 😂
A big part of the problems with the P38 and likely also the P49 was its COST. Greg's Airplanes goes into this pretty extensively covering most of the key aircraft of WW II and usually mentioning the cost per unit (If I remember right P38 was over twice the cost of other key fighters like P47 and definitely much more than P51 which was the best deal of all). The P38 was popular with the command, who jockeyed to obtain as many of this airplane as they could get (many wound up in the Pacific Theater where their range was a great plus and they did not need to travel at over 20k ft altitude). Also, the P38 had complaints around the temperature in the center nacelle with the pilot and controls. Apparently the heating was not ideal, and thus the P38 had a far better time down in the Pacific where it did not have to act as bomber escort at high altitude. P38 was deemed the best gun platform as far as easy sighting of target of all these fighters due to the centerline placement of the weapons.
The P-38s units in the 5th and 13th Air Forces had bomber escort as a priority mission. So many misconceptions in the comments.
Wow, I never realized the technology back then had already reached these heights. Your explanations are super clear-thanks for sharing! I’m a huge fan of unusual experimental aircraft myself...
The P-49 looks cool but keeping the engines from melting would have been a pain. Happy holidays! Thank you for all the time you put into these!
Charles Lindburg was sent to the Pacific and showed crews how to adjust the engine to get better fuel economy while making the P38 even faster than Lockheed had promised.
He should have been decorated for doing the fuel adjustments considering that raid to get Admiral Yamamoto (pearl harbour architect) wouldn't have happened without the Lindberg fix.
@@BenjaminRowe-hc7uo I think he was only in the Pacific as an Observer and not as a combatant, IIR, correct me if I'm wrong on this, although it turns out he flew some missions and downed a few Zero's and stuff. It was once gossip and word got out about it he was ordered back to the 'States. He was there in a civilian capacity and not a member of the armed forces which may have have made him unable to receive any military award even if they wanted to. I quite agree on your sentiments though.
@@Thenogomogo-zo3un that whole story of Lindbergh as a civilian is due to his pro nazi activity before the war. The president wanted him out of the military during the war.
@@BenjaminRowe-hc7uo The mission that got Yamamoto was in April 1943. Lindbergh did not go to the Pacific until mid 1944.
0:14 starting a documentary with one of the best modern waifu really sets the mood here. Then again, Power was known to be anaemic when she used too much blood for her attacks and honestly with the fate of the “Lightning but bigger” XP-58 a weapons platform being supersized most often results in a more lethargic performance.
Also, while we’re on the topic of power, the turbocharged Allisons are more than adequate for the mission profiles of the P-38. No amount of power can really fix the compressibility issues NACA and Lockheed had to deal with. The late model P-38s go beyond 410mph while still maintaining reasonable fuel economy, which coupled with Lindbergh’s fuel trim tricks can really push their limits.
Merry Christmas, Mr. IHYLS!
Reminds me of the DH Hornet, which had two 100-series Merlins that made 2000 HP each. Eric Brown said it was way overpowered (it could do aerobatics with one prop feathered), but for a design that went into production in 1945, it was relatively successful, with almost 400 produced.
Engines ahead of the nose allows them to be closer together, reducing thrust issues with one engine out
I think he is reading from official reports for most of that. I could be wrong, but I kept thinking of additional down the line upgrades that would be required like the heat shielding and it seemed like it was pretty thorough, and since he mentioned them upgrading the heat shielding, I got the sense it wasn't him guessing.
It also improves roll rate by putting the weight closer to the center, which is why the Me 410 did that.
@builder396 with something for carriers, single-engined performance is more the issue, though. Fairey handled it differently with various WW2 designs by having two engines in the fuselage, culminating with the Gannet with the Double Mamba. Although a single engine, the halves could be turned off individually which helped loiter. In all cases, no asymmetric thrust, but at the expense of complexity.
The phrases 'overpowered ' or 'underpowered' always referred to the engine(s), not the armament.
Agreed.
For armament, I'd go with under- or over-armed, or gunned.
The “c” in Bellanca is a hard c (k) not a soft c (s). Just sayin’.
Exactly! This guy ought to talk to some actual pilots before going to press with his expert knowledge.
Came to say this- I am not here to give him a hard time about it though. When people know the word but don’t pronounce it correctly, it’s because they read it. More people should read!
@@Metalwolf765I hear you, BUT the c comes before an an and in every language I can think of, that means the c is hard. It doesn’t have a cedilla under it, so it’s hard.
Damned autocorrect! The c comes before an a, not an “an”.
The bigger error is the use of “mil” to mean millimeter when referring to the cannon size. A mil is one thousandth of an inch, NOT a millimeter. A 30 mil cannon is really puny when you consider that 40 mil is a millimeter!
Just saying, I ALWAYS learn something from your videos.
Thanks for all the research, can't imagine getting all these facts is easy.
09:06 if anyone is wondering, I think the narrator of Rock and Roll racing said that 'in another time zone' when a racer got exploded or got in last in the race...something like that
I get it! I love that game back in the day. I play a super Nintendo though
Thank you. That was an informative and humerous presentation, and delivered (I think) by a human with an interesting voice. Thank you for your effort.
Since there was no mass production of the thing, I guess you could call it the XP- Forty-NEIN!
NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN!
A former friend of mine once built a radio-controlled model airplane and put an engine on it that was twice as powerful than what was recommended for the kit. He was a rather extreme person. His plane did fly, but it was on the verge of going out of control as I recall. That was only 40 years ago.
when Lockheed was asked if they wanted to attach an engine that would yeet themselves out of the wing mounts their response was "we'll take that bet"
Is that an A-35, Vultee Vengeance at 1:58??
Excellent Aviation history, thoroughly interesting as always. Great Stuff
Have a great Christmas matey.
Someone in the middle east aquired Focke Wulf 190s with Junker bomber engines (...or Jumo 213) after WW2.
They had problems with flipping the plane while still being on the ground.
@@Niklas.K95 109s, not 190s. Avia versions supplied to Israel by the Czechs
@@wbertie2604 My bad. Still insane
Amazing video. Thanks for putting this together.
The more I watch the channel, the more I think The Narrator has a bunch of shower thoughts and pointless but amusing stories that he wants to tell and this is simply the vehicle for that. Whatever the case, I'm on board.
Merry Christmas 🎄🎅
Boy that photo of ground crews working on the P-47 really puts its size into prospective.
That R-2160 engine looks amazing. Whatever happened to it? All I can find is that it was used in a few prototype aircraft and then forgotten - there must be a more to its story.
Those Hyper Engines did not work.
Thank you fpr showing this,Very good,I had no idea about the XP-49.
A person who has a 100 pound card collection is a cardiac.
Most Illogical!🖖
If they keep them in a back pocket they're a Cardassian.
@@strayling1 'kin 'ell! Groan. Merry Xmas.
Terminology: a strong engine is one that can survive being hit by a hammer, one with more output is more powerful. Calling an engine stronger seems to have crept in recently, possibly from automatic translation of German documents.
Dictionary definition: "having the power to move heavy weights or perform other physically demanding tasks."
There are multiple definitions of strong so I give IHYLS a pass on this.
@rolanddutton it's a change in standard usage that seems to have become prevalent only in the last ten years.
The P-38 itself was never allowed to reach its full potential. It would have been possible to build a P-38 with twin 2,000 HP Allison F series V-1710 engines, and twin four blade 13'-6" Hamilton Standard high activity paddle props in early 1944.
Much of the compressibility problem could have been resolved with the improved wing roots and other modifications developed by NACA. The top speed would have exceeded 450 MPH in level flight, critical Mach would have been 0.72-0.75.
What about a pair of Merlins or Gryphons???
@@RedneckSpacemanMerlins were already on high-demand for P-51s. Not many US aircraft used it (i think only Mustangs did)
Besides, the Allison did prove to be the better engine later in the war. Went from the underdog to the master.
Very much so. @@amazingstealth8235
Amazing stealth.
Absolutely no one in the entire World thinks the Alison engines were ever better than the Rolls Royce engines.
The Pratt and Whitney radials OTOH were magnificent.
@@Samuel-hd3cp Wrong. The brit centric non-factual books say the RR Merlin was touched by God. That's just wrong. It's the times the moving parts and makes less power.
It's pronounced "belanka". I live a couple miles from where they were built in Newcastle Delaware. Their airfield is a museum there now.
The p38 was very overpowered at low altitude over Europe. Great for ground attack. My favorite plane of all time.
Since you mentioned your fav..Mine is the F-104..just so long as it has those pods on the ends of the wings. IMHO It is the most Sci-Fi looking fighter plane !! It just doesn't look right without those things on the wing tips. Are they fuel tanks?? I honestly don't know! The F-104 is featured in an episode of Star Trek!?
I can think of at least one WW1 aircraft with 8 machine guns: the Sikorsky Ilya Muromets.
Zeppelin-Staaken R.XIV had 6.
Man…
It that time frame?
They were looking at everything and Anything that could stomp a mudhole in Everybody.
I can’t hate them for it…I would too…if I was in an active war with multiple major powers.
Crazy stuff mate!
Great vid!
Thanks!
😎👍
Merry Christmas to you.
Late model P-38s were superior to the P-49.
Kelly Johnson had a big laugh over that
MERRY CHRISTMAS 🎁🎄🎁
From America 🦅
"Chainsawman" reference with the character who goes by the name, Power? God, I love this channel 😅
Please stop saying "swapped out" and swap it out with "replaced".
Love your work.
You are correct Sir , it is indeed posting on Christmas Eve.
Merry Christmas to you and yours.
I really enjoy your videos .,
Hey IHYLS could you please make a video about the polish light bomber the pzl.p23 karaś?
PS it was the first plane to bomb Germany in WW2.
"In another time zone." Love the Rock and Roll Racing reference. 😊
I have never seen anyone refence that game. maybe it wasn't as obscure as I thought. I can still hear the announcer saying that in my head to this day.
@Thedailygrind90 Wasted a lot of hours in high school because of that game. It's ridiculous, yet extremely fun.
Some B25 G bombers had a 75mm cannon on them.
And aircrews disliked those short nosed variants as they had poor flight characteristics, preferring the 8 .50 cal gun nose instead.
The 75mm cannon I believe was the same type as the one put on M4 Shermans. It had to be manually loaded by one of the flight crew.
gta learned me that the recoil from a gun actually HELPS to fly. it just has to be mounted backwards.
I find it very interesting that you chose an image of a British spitfire with American markings.
So what's wrong with that???? There are thousands of pictures of the Brits doing the same thing especially with the wildcat, hellcat, Corsair, TBM avenger, does that bother you??? So it's what's good for me is not good for thee!!!
And?
The US Army operated at least 6 squadrons of Spirfires mostly in N Africa.
It's a p-39 aircobra,not a spitfire.
Benjamin Rowe. No it's a Spitfire.
Why the photo of the F4 Corsair at 11:03 ??
The F4 is an example of an aircraft that required delicate handling because the engine had so much power. If the aircraft in this video made it into production, it may have also had issues that were difficult to handle because the engines had so much power relative to its airframe.
As to the reason for tricycle landing gear - taildraggers are notoriously hard to fly in comparison, so that's probably it.
Great video
GREAT LOOKING "STILL'S"!!!
3:36 also well after the Fokker G-1 has matured well into a nearly perfect twin engine 'hunter/cruiser' type fighter. The type was built in limited numbers from 1936 onwards and because of WW2 it's production and development halted but it had some serious influence on designs like this, as you'll see in it's specs and features.
Funnily enough the Fokker G-1 was a dead end and would have not been useful after 41' as a frontline unit except for maybe Indonesia for exactly the same reasons as why this airplane never got anywhere
Merry Christmas
If for this, I strongly believe the XP-50 was the better option by far.
A smaller and lighter airframe with two smaller engines that, while underpowered on their own, made good power combined. Small airframe with small engines = cheaper.
And if you thing about it, it wouldn't have been hard to make a R-1830 equipped variant with more power later on, if the 1820 wasnt enough to keep up.
Lockheed: _Well,,, we're_ waiting!
Continental: 🫣
Showing Power from Chainsawman was an up alone! Merry Christmas!
Wonder if they substituted a pair of RR Griffons? Or would they be too big?
Could probably have been made to fit, but there is the issue of availability - only ~6,000 Griffons were built.
I am not sure if there were plans to build the Griffon in the US, but if there were, production engines woudln't come off the line until very late in the war.
If the I-1430s actually developed 1,600hp, or they had sustitude V-1710s of 1,400hp-1,600hp the XP-49 may have improved upon the P-38's performance.
The failure of the experimental engines always begs the question, why didn't they use the Merlin/Packard?
The answer to that may be two fold: * when the Packards became available, these were already assigned in high numbers for the P-51. * since the P-38 had excellent turbo superchargers to feed the Allisons, not much more would to be gained with the Packards.
@@charlesrousseau6837 Packard started building 20-series Merlins first - single stage, 2 speed. They were fitted to the P-40F and P-40L, and the bulk exported to the UK.
The turbocharged Allison, with proper maintenance, rigging, and fuel, is lighter, smaller, more powerful, and more reliable than the Merlin. And more fuel efficient.
The F series V-1710 Allison was capable of 3400 RPM, at 80" of manifold pressure, for an output of 2,000 HP.
The USAAF intentionally down rated the Allison. They were however rigged in the field for maximum output when 150 octane fuel was available.
The G series was available in mid 1944, but the USAAF decided against buying it. It was even more powerful.
@@AlanRoehrich9651 They were capable of 2,000hp at the end of the war.
As was the Merlin, which coudl deliver 2,000hp at 81 inHg MAP.
Ltae model E and F series and G series engines were rated for 3,200rpm. Maybe some G series were capable of 3,400rpm.
A single stage, single speed V-1710 is slightly lighter than a single stage, single speed Merlin, maybe 45kg (100lb) lighter than a single stage, two speed Merlin.
In P-38s prior to the P-38J, the inetrcooler was installed in the leading edge of the wing. This restricted the power that could be made, even when improved versions of the V-1710 were installed.
Including the weight of the turbocharger and associated piping, the V-1710 was similar in weight to the 2 stage Merlins, but the weight of those varied quite a bit depending on accessories fitted.
The turbocharged V-1710 was indeed more fuel efficient than the Merlin. That is partly due to the advantage of turbocharging, and also that early versions of the engine used a higher compression ratio.
The V-1710 had a smaller frontal area than the Merlin, largely because of using downdraft carburettor, rather than the Merlin's updraft carburettor. However, the V-1710 was longer than the equivalent Merlin, and when coupled with the turbocharger took up a lot more space than a 2 stage Merlin.
Prior to the war, US engines did not have a combat or war emergency rating. This was introduced in 1941 or 1942, so numbers prior to that may not be directly comparable.
@@waynec3563 Thank you. I think I must have been referring to the dual stage Packard.
Today I Learned the term, "Happy Christmannuka".
That is something.
Wonder what would have been the case if the visionary that came up with the Grumman Tigercat, came up with that design in time for this proposal?
They came up with the XF5F and XP-50 first, and then evolved it into the F7F.
I think there was such a problem in "The Flight of the Phoenix"? It's true that in theory the airframe was supposed to have the right balance, but they were afraid that the engine would tear it to shreds? It's been a while since I watched it as a kid, so I don't remember exactly...
A great movie. I recall that the Phoenix was a very makeshift amateur construction and capt. Towns had serious doubts about the ability of the aircraft to withstand the 2000 hp R-2800 power.
@@charlesrousseau6837 I just found an interesting documentary: "Fatal Last Flight of the Phoenix".
Power my beloved
So much overuse of "Power" and "Too powerful" brings up memories of those stupid game ads: "I HAVE FIVE MIWWION POWAH!" So, thanks for that...
[skip the ad for 25 money and 40 cents]
Excellent video as always! Consider “aerobatic” for “acrobatic”. (My flight instructor wouldn’t let me do either one!) 😂
How about the Chain Lightning?
Why? Just another story of poor management.
As always, there is the power to weight ratio to be considered with any aircraft developed. It's OK wanting more power, but more power requires bigger and heavier engines so it makes the plane heavier, so the plane needs more power. A vicious Catch 22.
I think the guys that had all the X planes chopped up for scrap should have been put in our local wrecking yards car smashing thing back in the 60s. It was a 10 X 24 foot 2' thick slab of concrete and steel on a hinge. Car parts would fly for 40'
Happy Chrismukkah!!!
@6:32 I thought that one cylinder was experiencing a Blue Screen of Death
I thought the major issue with this thing was sealing the cockpit for pressurization.
There was this thing called the XP_38A that was built as a test bed for pressurization for the XP-49. Lockheed had experience in pressurization so that was not a problem.
Thought Bellanca was pronounced Bellanka, not Bellansa.🤔 Auto reader maybe. The vids don't strike me as AI.
He is not AI.
The self sealing fuel tanks were so effective they didn't even feed fuel into the engines
A projected development plagued with problematic powerplants and subsystems for a role that had been mooted by other types already in service.
Sounds like every other engineering project in ww2
Every hotrodder knows that just throwing more engine at something sounds great, but can end badly. If you can get the power down, then you get to worry about the engine being powerful enough to bend the frame. I'm sure it's the same concept with aircraft.
Ferrari had a legacy spending cap that was higher than the other F1 teams and it didn’t make them dominant or even relevant some years.
4x 30mm - Devastation
Doing great, thanks for asking and Mele Kalikimaka from Hawai’i!
The XP-49 makes me think of the 1969 Plymouth ‘Cuda 440 (and it’s sister, the Dodge Dart 440). Too much engine ruined what was a perfectly fine and sporty car with the 340 c.i.d. engine
the of Dart is pretty cute tho
The problem was wasting time on engines that did not work.
If Jeremy were an aircraft engineer in ww2 speed and power would have been priority and we would've broken the sound barrier much earlier!!!!! At the cost of many test pilots lives!
"Bellanca" is pronounced with a HARD "C" ("K") sound.
Tricycle gear is a lot nicer to land than tail dragger
Over or under powered refers to the engine. The armorrament strength woukd be described as being under gunned or up gunned . Not both aspects of a plane being described in dame way as that would confuse people unless given more detail
Why show a Spitfire in American markings with 2*20mm cannon , whilst trying to illustrate an 8*303 mg armed Spitfire .
It's pronounced "Bell-anka". My Dad used to own one (not the fighter prototype, but one of their civilian light aircraft).
Ironically, both the hs129 and the ju87G were offensively overpowered, and severely underpowered with respect to their engines. Like a mere mortal trying to lift Thor's hammer...
0:36 OI!? Why 2 'Ks!
^Just a grunt from the '00s
Taco Tuesday
Christmas Eve
And most of all
A new video from you.
Thank you.
D
Yeah. This would hardly be the only plane doomed by it's engine development.
.
1:39 IHYLS: the HS-129 B3 doesn't exist, it cant hurt you.
HS.129 B-3...
I wish my collections only weighed 101 pounds.
It's Bellanca Bell Anka like Paul Anka
I wonder if they thought to just try a different engine like the (Napier Sabre?) one in the Typhoon/Tempest!?! 🤔
No. Why would they? Just junk the US engine programs and replace them with British engines. What sane country that had the scientific and industrial capability would do that? Only in your fantasy world I imagine.
Yet the XP-50 would have the last laugh as it continues to torment war thunder players to this day
Bowl-ton Paul, repeat after me, Bowl-ton Paul Bowl-ton Paul, repeat after me, Bowl-ton Paul Bowl-ton Paul, repeat after me, Bowl-ton PaulBowl-ton Paul, repeat after me, Bowl-ton Paul
I look up and see power.
While playing sea power.
Power! UNLIMITED POWER!!!
Merry christmas! Me, i got me a Monogram 1:48 f-101b for christmas😊
Nonsense. "Power", as applied to aircraft, refers to the power output of the engine, not the armament.
Thankyou for the interesting short documentary. I bet that the more powerful engines in the XP-49 reduced the range considerably. BTW the AI voice is pretty irritating.
Bellanca the C does not have a S sound it should sound like /K/
The hyper engine program was pretty much a waste due to unnecessary requirements.
So you are saying that you need to find a crane capable of lifting 101lbs? 😢😂
I am going to disagree with your presentation a bit. I think I get what you were intending to do, but I think in terms of setting and balancing requirements and so forth it is more of a case of:
1) Role: What kind of role does this piece of equipment fill?
For example you mentioned that armament. Armament doesn't matter if you are a U2, because a U2 uses altitude as its primary means or defense.
2) Task: What are we expecting this piece of equipment to do in that role?
Doctrine: In our doctrine how do we approach that kind of task utilizing a piece of equipment in that role? Do we need to update our doctrine? (Do we prefer .50 cal or cannons for example, how are they being deployed, etc.)
3) Projections: what kind of oppositions do we expect this piece of equipment in that particular role to need to be able to overcome to achieve that task utilizing our existing/projected doctrine based on the enemy's current rate of progression? For example, is the enemy up-armoring their planes, and will a .50 be able to reliably overmatch that projected armor or do we need to arm it with something more powerful?
This also applies to upgradeability. Will adding a heavier armament require a full redesign, or can we scale it's armament based on need?
Also, when do we project we will need this piece of equipment by? If you are intending to use the X-49 for a specific application at a particular lrojjected point of time then you make compromises to get somehting with that capability on the field, but if it turns out it is not necessary, then maybe you scrap the current project and apply the lessons learned to a clean sheet deisgn that does not require so many sacrifices.
Reason for Difference: We essentially get to the same points in the end, in terms of balancing, but I am guessing, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the X49 was intended as an escort for the B-29 or sonething like that, hence the need for the cabin to be pressurized and some of the other requirements. I think you said the military's interest level changed in 1943, which is around the time we started to become confident that we were going to win the war, and by that point it was pretty clear that the B-29 would not be facing significantly upgraded opposition, especially against Japan. As such, maybe we don't absolutely need a fighter capable of matching the B-29's operational altitude for escort missions.
Maybe I am wrong on that, but it seemed odd to require a pressurized cockpit, and then suddenly for that feature to no longer matter, unless that feature was projected to be surplus to requirements.
I think your analogy still works either way. You were just operating under a doctrine of wanting to use a single storage container for your cards, that needed to be updated based on its resulting lifting requirements and/or your doctrine needs to change with regards to where you store your cards so you don't have to lift them. Either that or maybe what needs to be upgraded is the owner of the cards to one that who is capable of lifting 101lbs and who is not a little girlie man (meant with a Hanz and Franz accent) ... Watch out if your storage container starts regularly giving you suspicious looks and if a crane capable of lifting a human mysteriously shows up at your door one day. 😅😉
Merry Christmas, and thanks for the great content.
Bell-ANK-ah, not Bell-ON-sa