Maybe for the time, it was a " design too far" , but today with a single hi-bypass fan engine and suitable wall insulation, it could be a very attractive concept. There have been quite a few successful aircraft designs with an engine in the rear, or part of the main fuselage structure behind the passengers, so to speak, of which the Trident springs to mind. The main advantage of this design is the fact that you do not have the additional mass of engine pylons , and the drag of the engines /pylons themselves. As an executive jet with as i say extensive noise and vibration insulation, using modern day materials, a plane of this design could be very fast and more importantly, very cool!! more an executive play thing!!
well... even 737 max had no extra pylons... but engine in back does make things more complicated because you have to pump fuel from wings to back and also need stronger structure in back so ultimately under wing engines is the best solution in most cases.
@@jebise1126 Fuel always needs to be pumped from somewhere to somewhere. That makes no difference. And all planes need to be strong all over. Having the engines clustered in the centerline would improve performance. This is why fighter planes have them in the centerline, rather than like on the Messerschmitt 262. The spread out engines are in some ways better for aerodynamics, but bad for rapid maneuvering.
@@SmartassX1 if tank is above the engine gravity will do the work anyway. yes strong but how strong that is the question. below the wings is considered the optimal layout most of the time and so thats why most passenger planes use that. once single engines will be viable for commercial use we will see...
@@chamberlane2899 yeah... true. single engine in back would probably be behind and a bit above main hull of aircraft. some like that already exist at least as prototypes. and fan that would be wider than cabin is overkill for sure anyway. also if it has opening on lower side that can suck in debris anyway.
@@chamberlane2899 yeah but those are getting more reliable thats why we have long haul 2 engines now so for regional jets that might happen in next few years.
Tank was a fine thinker. Today, this may be an approach for a single engine large turbo fan plane. Apart from that, it did not look like Tank's team planned to seat passengers in the area of the engines, but in front of them.
In theory, a future plane have a single rear mounted engine, like the F-16 aircraft, and instead have an air intake mounted under the fuselage, instead of all around the fuselage like this 1950s Condor airplane. Also, a similar design would reduce drag, as no engines are mounted under the wings. An idea would to use a diverterless supersonic inlet mounted the belly of the plane (like an F-16), so when going mach 0.9, the airflow can go smoothly into the engine mounted at the rear of the fuselage
As an Argentinian who is in love with aviation, it is weird for me that i have never heard about this thing, i know about the Pulqui 1 and 2, and lots of other planes designed in my country, but this is awesome!
I think this thing is fantastic. Argentinians should be proud they even manufactured aircraft at all considering their size! Most countries simply copied American or European designs to catch up rather than design their own planes
@@MostlyPennyCat You should ask: "What happened to Argentina then?" And the consequences of populism are part of the answer about the huge and constant impoverishment of the country since the 40s.
I drew a plane like that but as a sci fi plane "concept" on my high school notebook, and I never knew this plane until now, just saying. Thank you for this video
Major mistake here, the Pulqui I was a design of an FMA team under a design office lead by French engineer Dewoitine. Tank was in Germany when the IAe. 27 first flew. The Pulqui II was already in design when Tank was contracted by the FMA and took over the development behind doors with his own team applying his experience, much to the dislike of Argentine engineers. Fun fact, when he left, the project improved as the local team solved his errors that cause the first prototypes to crash. Also the "courtesy" part of the British wasn't courtesy but DEBT, London had a 19,8 billion (fixed at current value) to Argentina by 1945 in supplies delivered during WWII. They were broke and couldn't pay, so they offered licenses, weapons, machine tools and obsolete scrap machines to pay off (they defaulted and Argentina condoned half the debt even). One of the licenses were the RR Nene turbine, which was a dead end and the licensed because they were moving to axial flow turbines. The turbine was the only one available in Argentina then it was chosen for the project in that arrangement.
Thank you for clearing up the confustion around the Pulqui I/II. As for the RR Nene engine: it was not as dead as you might think. The British also sold the design to Russia (the USSR back then) where it was built in large numbers (as the RD-45 and later as the VK-1) and extensively used in planes like the MiG-15/17 and the Il-28 bomber. Another licence built version was the J42 engine which powererd the Grumman F9F-2 Panther. The Nene engine was also used in licence built versions of the DH Vampire jet fighter (Australian and French).
I've recently thought that a design like this would be ideal for a single ultra-high bypass ratio engine for a regional airliner. FOD ingestion would probably be an issue though.
Me seeing thumbnail; "Wow an ultra high bypass turbo fan! Brilliant." Video; "...clustered five turbojet engines around the fuselage" Me again; "Doah !"
super duper extra bypass engine on small aircraft... i wanted to make the same post but than i already saw one. i would also add it needs 2 engines that run the same fan. 1 engine is spinning and one is backup if something goes wrong because not sure if people would want 1 engine only when going over sea. i mean it can be private jet easily too for super duper extra range.
Nice video. As an argentine I love to see some designs from my country. But, there are some mistakes. First: I.Ae. 27 Pulqui I was designed by Émile Dewoitine. The one designed by Kurt Tank was the I.Ae. 33 Pulqui II (Based on the Ta 183, but modified to use an english Nene II engines). Second: the Revolucion Libertadora (coup against Peron) was in 1955, not 1958. After the war Argentine recieve no more than five Nene engines from England. At that time we couldn't reverse engineer them like the russians did (Klimov VK-1). This plane would have used them all. This is only one of the many reasons this plane could never have been mass produced in Argentina. The same goes for the Pulqui 2. Only five prototypes were ever built, one reserved for static testing, and four flying prototypes, all of them practically handmade.
Boundary layer injestion was the whole point of this engine configuration. Ingesting the boundary layer let's you get more thrust for less power because you're accelerating "slower" air. Torpedoes use this same phenomenon to great effect.
@@martylawson1638 The boundary layer ingestion effect is considered to be a problem specifically for normal turbofan engines, where the varying intake velocity across the face of the engine causes rapidly cycling stresses on fan blades and thus, drastically reduces lifetime of said blades. This particular configuration I imagine would be free from such a problem, as the diameter of the inlets of the engines is significantly smaller than a turbofan, reducing the possibly for stress differential, not to mention that I think centrifugal compressor stages are significantly less sensitive to differential intake velocity than fans. A modern design housing just a single massive turbofan in the rear would also be fine with ingesting boundary layer air, as the inherent symmetry of the arrangement would mean that intake velocity only varies by radius instead of by angle. However, I don't think you could convince somebody to build this concept. The advantages of the current layout are significant. More engines means more safety. Engines under the wings can be easily maintained, removed, and replaced; not so with a tail engine. Spreading out the weight of the plane over the wing surfaces (by putting fuel, engine in/on the wings instead of the fuselage) reduces the stress on the wings, allowing you to cut weight from wing structures. A 10 or 15% imporvement in fuel economy is not going to outweigh all the problems, and there are likely better ways to try for fuel economy (lifting body airliners, for one).
@@J7Handle I think it is quite elegant that on a fighter you pull the engine out the rear and have it all in plain sight. 1:19 is just mad: You would sure need a splitter. Feed the out air into the jet engines and the boundary layer into an aft fan. Also I though that radial compressors have large lateral area? I would expect some staggering like in the English Electric Lightning. I wonder what that groove at 1:10 is. The air outside the boundary layer needs to be directed towards the center ASAP -- before a new boundary layer builds up.
Today NASA calls this technique "Boundary Layer Ingestion Propulsion" and it can save 8.5% in fuel consumption. The centrifugal engines are indifferent to poor boundary layer flow. Aircraft like the F-35 also don't need boundary layer splitters.
Another great video, the extremely strange pronunciations of "DeHavilland" aside. The noise of those early turbojets would have been unbearable positioned inside the fuselage but as Herr Dr. ing. Tank was used to military aviation that was probably not very significant. In terms of early jetliners, the DeHavilland Comet only flew 13 days ahead of the Avro Canada Jetliner, a fascinating project that is pretty forgotten in comparison to the overrated Avro Arrow, and would be worth a feature on its own.
@@chucku00 I know from previous videos that any German name is a step too far (we all loved "Luftwaffle") so I did not mention the Messerschmitt mangling. On the other hand, De Havilland Australia was the first overseas subsidiary of that British company so I thought that might not be so much of a challenge!
@@mcs699 That's not the issue. The issue is that the narrator doesn't know how to speak english, and therefore shouldn't be a narrator. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look up the pronunciation of words you can't pronounce. This is a huge problem with youtube. Lots of channels use narrators who can't be bothered to do their "job" properly. Not to mention all the incorrect information they spew out like it's fact.
Pointless questions as to the 'flaws'. The early British turbojets were centrifugal designs, and quite chubby - the passenger cabin could not have had 5 of these beasts around the outside of them. The passenger cabin seats would probably have ended where the last row of windows with the rear pressure bulkhead being not too much further aft of that.
Surely the windowless back of the cabin was intended for luggage only. And why would it be hot during flight with all those ventilation gaps? Had they found a problem like that, the next model of it would simply have had wider gaps. There are always some problems to work out with completely new designs.
The windowless section would need to be fuel tank in order to achieve the range stated. The wing tanks alone would not have been enough to fuel five very thirsty centrifugal flow turbines. Interesting note: This type of jet engine was very loud and very fuel thirsty. However, they were extremely reliable. There are a few that are nearly seventy years old, that still fly occasionally. As well as a number of them in aviation museums around the world that are demonstrated on test stands.
@@ytcensorhack1876 That sound great. They should advertise that they can transport any number of infants, but that they guarantee that passengers will never hear any crying.
You should have kept going. It got better. Messemitch, a once famous German aircraft manufacturer was mentioned. However the man knows his limitations and wisely didn’t attempt Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm.
In my headcanon I consider that an unintentional reference to an argentinian UA-camr and aviation enthusiast who also struggles to pronounce the names of aerospace companies. That "mesermitch" sounds too similar to be coincidence.
I am an argentinian pasionate about our historic national aerospace development, but let me tell you, I've never heard about the IA36 Condor. Seems very strange how the pane is called the same way as the secret supersonic missile program. I hope to see more Argentinian aviation videos, you could even make one about the "Narangero" IA 38 made by one of the Horten brothers and was actually built and used. It was eventually destroyed in a fire, but a video about it would definetly be interesting!
I love the fact Argentina was so innovative and basically came out of nowhere in the aero industry in the 50s. There are some amazing Argentinian aircraft that differ so much from the yanks and my own nation (Britain) designs. One of my all time favourite aircraft is the amazing Pucara. Keep well brother.
@@Rich77UK well it wasn't exactly out of nowhere. Argentina was a pioneer nation in aeronautics, the pre WWII air shows were one of the most important internationally, lots of early records were made in Argentina. The first helicopter to take off was the Pateras Pescara N12 in Buenos Aires during WW1. It won prices in Paris and London, long before anyone knew about Sikorsky or Bell. By the 1920s the aircraft factory was set and started producing licensed planes from UK, France, Germany and the US, then local designs started with small simple monoplanes, derivatives, and new designs. By the 1940s Argentina produced licensed fighters, training and mail aircraft, light attack planes, heavy fighters/attackers, transport and light bombers. There was even guided bombs and missiles!.
I'm fairly certain that it was Emile Dewoitine, and not Kurt Tank, who designed the FMA I.Ae. 27 Pulqui I. The Pulqui I had such terrible performance (Emil Dewoitine did not take the transition from propeller to turbine power very well) that the project was scrapped and the FMA I.Ae. 33 Pulqui II, an entirely new design by Kurt Tank, was selected instead. The only commonality the Pulqui I and Pulqui II shared was the name "Pulqui" itself.
"-That was cute" (Reimar Horten after the construction of the I.Ae. 38 Naranjero prototype, a four-engine flying wing specialized in the transport of ... oranges) Greetings from Argentina from a fan of unbuilt aircraft projects.
You go on for awhile about the problems with the plane being passengers sitting in the engine section, but I think it's very obvious the passenger compartment doesn't extend past the wings.
Interesting, but... 1. Maintenance nightmare 2. Safety nightmare -- Any catastrophic loss of one engine would doom the aircraft 3. I'd be very concerned about the long term structural integrity of the tail assembly
Exactly - one engine cuts off and you have four engines blasting the side of the airframe with hot exhaust gasses. There is no way this would work in practice.
I thought this.. access to the engines for maintenance would be pants. Maybe potential temperature issues depends on engineering although the 1950's was limited in materials.
@@doggonemess1 Yet it wouldn't create asymmetric thrust, which is a huge huge advantage of this design. Had it been refined it might have beat out wing mounted engines.
The range was not an issue, even in 1966, when my family flew from Buenos Aires to Madrid on either a B707 or DC-8 the trip had stops at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and Dakar, Senegal because of the range. Each stop meant debarkation since the plane had to be refueled for each successive leg. Before that, Recife, close to the westernmost tipo of Brazil was a frequent stop.because planes couldn't make it to Dakar from anywhere else. In 1961 a trip to New York took us via Rio de Janeiro, La Guaira (Venezuela), Miami and finally NYC. Finally, the project was cancelled in 1958 but the Revolución Libertadora had been in 1955 so they might not have been related to one another.
I also imagine, with the engines incased into the fuselage lake that, that maintenance would be a nightmare. It's one of the main reason low-wing designs with underslung engines have always been so popular in the industry, so a plane with such hard-to-reach mechanicals would likely turn off a lot of airlines.
Underwing engines just didn’t work with centrifugal compressor engines which had air intakes at both the front and center of the engine. Turbofans changed that.
Need breeds such fantastic ideas, the pucara was made for anti-guerilla warfare, it's lethal against infantry but lacks in air-to-air combat, the FAL shows this too, it's reliable and cheap, and has several configurations perfect for argentina, sadly once the economy went to shit all of the argie "wonder weapons" stopped being produced, i'm pretty sure that if argentina had a buffed economy at the time, all that sweet advanced german engineering with argentinian ingenuity would've made it a super power.
@@somefurryguy1811 Pucara was Argentinean indigenous design but FAL not, it was a Belgian invention and one of the most widespread weapon concepts in history
8:00 Put the galley back there. Use it for storage! The front would only be used for passenger travel and make it high class. Your not gonna cram a bunch of seats in this thing so make it a business class jet. Its actually a cool design.
The design is 'wonky and scary' and it was 'a good thing it wasn't produced' but the only problems mentioned were just some theoretical ones for the passengers at the back, wherever that was. No actual flight problems or even potential flight issues are mentioned at all in the video.
As nice as the video was put together, I have to agree with you. I came out of this thinking. "So what´s the problem apart from the passengers that would not be sitting in that compartment anyways?" Thanks for making that vid anyways.
so comfort is the only issue? What about using this design for cargo delivery drone: put one high-bypass engine at the back, add "chomper" style openable nose to quickly load/unload cargo. Not having people on board would allow to take on additional risks: non standard aerodynamics solutions and using only one engine.
Yes more information about flight problems would be interesting. I assume the weight of 5 engines at the rear might make it a bit difficult to fly (given how short the aircraft is) I imagine it would suffer from similar issues to the Comet as well i.e. engine maintenance would be pretty difficult. Rear engines will probably produce a lot of heat potentially weakening the body over time/increased risk of a fire.
@@solarissv777 i was thinking the same thing, you can scale this thing up or down, and would be attractive for Naval Carrier cargo since if the engines are not on the wings you can have the wings fully foldable and saving so much space
Great video. Very interesting and well researched. Only found one mistake, the Revolución Libertadora (or as we call it "Fusiladora") took place in 1955, not '58. Hope to see more videos of our unfinished projects... that we have so many!
@@MrLaizard Yes. Enter IMF, say goodbye to industrialization and advanced research of any kind. My poor country lives a slow-motion massacre since. Thanks for your words.
I think the design is very good, today we can have a single engine (with large fan, hi bypass) in same fuselage configuration. The air flow around the fuselage is optimized, increasing the eficience and the modern turbo fan engines have extremely low cases of failures. Cheap, efficient.
Please correct this part of the story : The Pulqui I was not designed by Kurt Tank. Was designed by (french) monsieur Dewoitigne. It was very uncapable plane, even for his time. Viewing such non satisfactory desing, argentine autorities convocated Mr. Tank. A totally new plane was designed, the Pulqui II, a very succefull machine this time. Nice video, Congrats !!
Also, another needed correction. The British aircraft company that designed and built the Comet, and many other aircraft, is; De Havilland. It is pronounced; dee•hav•eh•land There were two times in this video when de Havilland was referenced, and two different pronunciations were used. They were both wrong. This is not some obscure, little known aircraft company. Today there are de Havilland aircraft being used by a number of well recognized airlines around the world. This includes North America and Europe. Any true aviation enthusiast and/or historian is going to be well aware of this. Certainly a well versed documentarian should be as well. I'm pretty certain you would never refer to a; Boing 747, McDonald's Dugless DC-10, Suki 29, Lock head SR-71, Gunman Wildcat, Mug 21, Hooker Hurricane, Pooper Cub, Chestnut 172, Messyshit 262, Auntie Noph 225, Phuka Wolf 109, Mick 15, Door Knocker 128, Or the ever infamous, and supersonic; Conquered Your videos look reasonably good, better than average. It is obvious that considerable time, effort, and money are spent in production. It seems a shame to go through all that effort and expense, then have such an audio deficiency. Perhaps enlist the services of a proof reader/viewer with some aviation history knowledge. The words spoken are an important part of a documentary. When the words contain blatant errors it calls the quality of the entire documentary into question. I'm confident that you can do better than this. Please, don't be more concerned with how fast you can pump them out, than with the quality of what you're pumping out. Looking forward to the next.
Pulqui I was perfectly comparable with jet planes of his time, like NAA Fury I or Supermarine Attacker or J-21R... And Pullqui II was far from satisfactory, with the same fatal flaw than the MiG-15 (and the Ta-183) : his elevator design (only the J-29 had it corrected) !
I think a twin engine turbofan design like Mirage V in rear could make a mid range passenger jet capacity of approximately 50 people. T shaped tail would be better. For extra safety, they can attach two or four large parachutes back and fron of the fuselage. In emergency time after failing all kinds of strategies, pilot will hit the switch and wings & rear engine part will be jettisoned. Then the whole fuselage will be landed by parachutes.
Interesting genius super single engine. I was just thinking up a concept similar to this, only instead of a loop open rear gills, a side vent cadge that causes the filtering ramjet intake strains, while no drag side surface, only the body would be replicate to the super sonic Concord mid wings & front attributes.
2:58 Finally circles are drawn right! All the other videos I've seen had perfect circles on distorted maps, so they didn't correspond to the areas actually in range.
I'm not really seeing the fatal flaw here aside from the inefficient use of space compared to engines mounted outside the fuselage. If you did the ducting correctly, the cold air blasting by the engines at 500 mph should keep that section of the aircraft at a manageable temperature.
What a wonderful video as always ,loved the landing animation and the animations in general .Also congrats on 200k subscribers .Keep up the great work mate .
His animations are great, the topic is interesting, the content good, the script is alright. I even like his speaking voice. But far out, that was a lot of mispronunciations for one video. I think he needs to give it to Patreon subscribers first, and they should help him correct these. Or just google for how words he is not familiar with should sound.
Passenger planes are designed to carry passengers. A fuselage filled with engines, results in a lot less passenger capacity; hence reduced profits. Engines out on the wings make them much easier to work on and replace. Engines all packed together could result in massive engine loss if just one engine exploded.
@@bob2161 Sorry in fact we landed at Reagan National Airport in Washington DC. Always felt Reagan was like landing on an aircraft carrier. The MD80 provided a unique sense of an aircraft turbine in flight. Lots of vibration and noise and a direct perception of the engines being throttled.
@@josephpiskac2781🤣😂🤤😂🤣 As often as I've flown in and out of that airport, that's the best description I've heard. Looking out the window, "Man, that water just keeps getting closer and closer." You see a boat flash by, "That guy was drinking a Coor's Light." Then the runway lights rush past the window followed immediately by big jolt, a loud thud, and the sudden roar of twin jet engines going for all their worth, backwards. For the next 4½ seconds it sounds and feels as if the universe is still deciding; Have you crashed, or just landed? Finally, the decision is made followed by the announcement, "Ladies and Gentlemen, we would like to welcome you to the Nation's capital and Reagan National Airport... " I know what you mean about the engine on the wall though. For a 12 year period of my life, I made two trips a month into that airport. (It was Washington National in the beginning. It was only renamed Ronald Reagan the last 2 or 3 years I was flying there.) I was either on a DC-9 or a 727 when I flew in or out. Both of those have the engines mounted to the rear in a similar fashion. My flying companions and I used to joke that the airlines must hire Navy pilots to fly their DCA flights. However I never made the carrier connection until reading your comment. Now I'm wondering how I ever missed it. 😑
I must point out some mistakes on the video. First of all, Pulqui I was built prior to Kurt Tank's arrival to Argentina, and it was designed with a Dewoitne turbine and help from the french itself. Later on, the Pulqui II was developed in a cooperative effort between Tank and argentinian engineers, based on the latest Kurt Tank's design before the end of WWII, the Ta 183 plus the Pulqui I ideas. Also Peron was thrown out of government by a coup in 1955, not 1958. This bunch of generals and navy members destroyed all the research and prototypes made in Argentina, even though the Pulqui II was equal or better than MIg 15 or american Sabre F 86. Why? I have some ideas, but the first that comes to mind is treason, because they chose to buy F 86 from the Korean war, wich never arrived in total and only ten years after, in 1965. Argentina lost its chance to be an air power because of that coup.
A design such as this would be very expensive in terms of engine maintenance. This is why engines embedded into wings (such as is found in the DH Comet) were not widely adopted, despite the aerodynamic advantages.
That "revolution" (dictatorial coup) against 1946 democratically elected( and 1952 re-elected) Juan Peron, was ultimately the origin of all decadence in Argentina
the main flaw would have been , that all 5 angled engines had to run consistently to mediate the exhaust flow straight out of the plane. in case of a malfunction the exhaust fire would have touched the hull certainly causing its destruction.
There's a reason why rear engined liners fell out of favor over time. FOD ingestion and maintenance access are just two points which are still valid today. Airlines care all about running costs... 😉✌️
let's be clear that the airlines really don't care about maintenance access per se, they care about the presumed longer downtimes because maintenance would take more time with less accessible components. Basically, the airlines WILL make something a pain in the ass for maintenance if they think it will make them more money. I know you probably know this. The other folks reading may not
Not quite. Notice that the air intakes on all modern fighter jets is slightly separated from the fuselage so as to let the boundary layer pass by and avoid sucking it into the engine.
Great job! And kudos for not using robot voices. It’s difficult to read off a complex script but just work on your pronunciation a bit. Never heard of this plane before and it’s a fascinating insight into the beginning of the jet-age. They really were working from a blank sheet! I believe Kurt Tank ended up in India overseeing their aeronautical industry.
As an argentinian myself i find really cute and respectable that when you name a thing that is in spanish terms, you dont translate them to english but indeed say them in spanish. Great videos ! Love your work as always!!
Why? Good translations are important for understanding and clarity. You use the word respectable when you clearly mean respectful. Translation is important.
Hi. The Condor project was initially devised with a requirement for accessibility and reparation of an engine during flight (!). We must to consider that though this requirement is absurd during OUT TIME, it was an idea before the second world war, in order to compensate the problem of complex machinery failures (no six sigma during that time). In addition, there was the idea of isolating the engines at the back of aircraft so that the noise will be reduced, which was the second requirement of the stakeholder (Beechcraft starship anyone?). P.S. When we study aircraft we must consider them with respect to their requirements at the time, not to our knowledge at this time.
The major problems I see would have been: 1) That the air intake went completely around the fuselage which would make it subject to FOD (foreign object damage) 2) 5 engines in the back would make the aircraft extremely tail heavy 3) The fuel consumption of those 5 engines would never allow for a 5000Km range in an airframe like the one proposed.
Additionally, any kind of explosive engine failure could escalate into losing the entire tail of the plane fairly easy with all five engines so close together, effectively inside the fuselage directly below the tail.
2) depend on where you place the wings "move the center of gravity" 3) Yes its probebly very generously calculate, but it the plane do also have a extream low drag nose and "build in" engines
A nice video about Argentine airline plane FMA IA I 36 ...CONDORS plane with label 🏷 its back ground historical creature also its characteristics for its power ,comfortable & safe character thanks for sharing 👍
Thanks for the video. We have one of those Rolls Royce Jet engines in display y La Plata, Argentina. In the Aerospace Engineering University. About the Pulqui (pronounces like ' pull - key ' ) it was extremely similar to the russian MIG, but, like any othe small country. Many projects were overthrow, and I don't mean by the internal turmoil and dictatorship. Argentina's space race was also quite advanced for a small South American country, but it had an hiatus too long and couldn't keep up
The cabin would definitely not have reached back between the engines. The last seat would have been where the last window is. Did you even watch your own video? The drawings show it and there is no reason to believe they are far away from being realistic. Heat is no problem, it can be shielded by bypassing air. But the room between the engines is not as big as it looks. Maybe it can be used as a cargo compartement. You don't even mention the two big problems of that engine installation. One is, the intake on the lower side is extremely prone to sucking in alls sorts of stuff from the runway. That is highly unhealthy for the engines. It is no coincidence that a design with intakes in the direct dirt spray zone of the undercarriage never had been even close to successful. Most designs with intake configurations like that have never been built in reality. The other is, the huge exhaust nozzle shared by all engines loses a huge amount of its effectiveness as soon as one or more engines is not running. It is just way too big for the exhaust gasses of the remaining engines. When only 4 out of 5 engines are running, thrust will be well below 4/5 and things get worse with every additional shut down engine. That design had no chance to be a success. Stop mass production, go to quality, take time to think. And stop those fast cuts and zooms. The used graphics can tell the viewer a lot when he gets the chance to study them.
@ZeoX it does NOT take him a lot of time to put these together. Lol look at his release schedule. It's INSANE. The guy is crapping these things out like goose turds on a nice lawn.
Great video!! It´s exciting to see a project from my country. It would be great to see a video from IA-37 Delta, a prototype of a future fighter capable of mach 2, designed by Reimar Horten. Keep the good job!
It looks super clean and at least at the beginning of the video looks spectacular and super aerodynamic not having the added drag from engines hanging on the wings. Also even though it was small that could’ve developed wide bodies
There's something about this design which seems to warrant another look. With modern materials and a few tweaks it just might work. Thanks, I was totally unaware of this airliner and its history. Great job!
If they won WW2 this would be quite comparable to what would be flying around Always interesting to see in Argentina what 1950+ Nazi aircraft designs would've looked like had they held out
Actually, I am starting to worry about the alarming number of narration issues. Is the original script written in a different language then translated in english with google? I love the content, believe me, but can't you ask someone to proof read the scripts of your videos before recording the narration?
Interesting, as an Argentinian I found it very interesting and surprised as I never heard of such FMA such proyect, keep them comino. Any way to do one similar on FMA IA-58 Pucara?
Kurt Tank, the father of the Focker Wulf 190. During World War II, Tank was one of the most important designers of fighter aircraft for the German Air Force. In 1939 he began designing the Fw 190 Würger single-seater fighter, which from 1941 became the Luftwaffe's second standard fighter alongside the Messerschmitt Bf 109. The further development of the Fw Ta 152 was only used occasionally in 1945. Both were among the best fighter planes of their time. At the end of the war he developed the groundbreaking Fw Ta 183 Huckebein jet fighter. The prototypes and design documents captured by the Allies strongly influenced the development of the Soviet MiG-15 and the US F-86.
Hello, the DH106 Comet was actually built, put in service and lasted until the '80s. The same can be said for many other planes of that era. Few passengers traveling in full jet-luxury was already a reality as soon as Comets/BOAC started to fly in service from 1952 onwards.
It looks to be a very aerodynamic solution to have engines mounted under the wings. The profile is clean. Maybe in this day and age of electric aircraft it could be a feasible design.
I´m from Argentina and never heard of this one!! Thanks for the information and great production quality! Also it´s a shame that our populist and then military governments at the time wasted such a chance to make our country relevant in such a high tech industry as aviation, maybe we could be the ones making Embraer planes rather than Brazil!!
As a Captain for major freight carrier, I'd have reservations flying engines of that era & arranged around each other as they were about the possibilities of one engine having a catastrophic engine and damaging one or more additional engines. Having wing or tail mounted engines diminishes that type of disaster. Sure wouldn't want to rely on an annular engine arrangement on a Cat 3a approach!
1:32 it doesnt look like shedding a shell to me It remind me of my childhood I put my pen cap on behind of the pen and give it a ruler as wing and cutout paper as aileron I remember my playing during the lunchbreak XD
With today's technology you could use that design, and make a really awesome aircraft. The back of the aircraft that is surrounded by engines could have wraparound LED TVs, and noise canceling tiles. I got this really lightweight noise canceling insulation for my music room, and it works amazingly well. We even have these panels that we fit up against the windows when it's going to get loud, and you can't hardly hear anything outside of the house.
Maybe for the time, it was a " design too far" , but today with a single hi-bypass fan engine and suitable wall insulation, it could be a very attractive concept. There have been quite a few successful aircraft designs with an engine in the rear, or part of the main fuselage structure behind the passengers, so to speak, of which the Trident springs to mind. The main advantage of this design is the fact that you do not have the additional mass of engine pylons , and the drag of the engines /pylons themselves. As an executive jet with as i say extensive noise and vibration insulation, using modern day materials, a plane of this design could be very fast and more importantly, very cool!! more an executive play thing!!
well... even 737 max had no extra pylons... but engine in back does make things more complicated because you have to pump fuel from wings to back and also need stronger structure in back so ultimately under wing engines is the best solution in most cases.
@@jebise1126 Fuel always needs to be pumped from somewhere to somewhere. That makes no difference. And all planes need to be strong all over.
Having the engines clustered in the centerline would improve performance. This is why fighter planes have them in the centerline, rather than like on the Messerschmitt 262. The spread out engines are in some ways better for aerodynamics, but bad for rapid maneuvering.
@@SmartassX1 if tank is above the engine gravity will do the work anyway.
yes strong but how strong that is the question. below the wings is considered the optimal layout most of the time and so thats why most passenger planes use that. once single engines will be viable for commercial use we will see...
@@chamberlane2899 yeah... true. single engine in back would probably be behind and a bit above main hull of aircraft. some like that already exist at least as prototypes. and fan that would be wider than cabin is overkill for sure anyway. also if it has opening on lower side that can suck in debris anyway.
@@chamberlane2899 yeah but those are getting more reliable thats why we have long haul 2 engines now so for regional jets that might happen in next few years.
Tank was a fine thinker. Today, this may be an approach for a single engine large turbo fan plane. Apart from that, it did not look like Tank's team planned to seat passengers in the area of the engines, but in front of them.
You mean he was a fine tinker
In theory, a future plane have a single rear mounted engine, like the F-16 aircraft, and instead have an air intake mounted under the fuselage, instead of all around the fuselage like this 1950s Condor airplane. Also, a similar design would reduce drag, as no engines are mounted under the wings.
An idea would to use a diverterless supersonic inlet mounted the belly of the plane (like an F-16), so when going mach 0.9, the airflow can go smoothly into the engine mounted at the rear of the fuselage
Unfortunately he was an utterly unrepentant Nazi until the day he died - that was how he wound up in control of Focke Wulf in the first place…
"Tank was a fine thinker."
Nope, he was a F-ing Nazi and the Only Good Nazi is a Dead Nazi!!!
@@davidhollenshead4892
Calm down.
As an Argentinian who is in love with aviation, it is weird for me that i have never heard about this thing, i know about the Pulqui 1 and 2, and lots of other planes designed in my country, but this is awesome!
Probably because it was never made. May as well give credit to a 10 year olds kerbal space program rocket.
I think this thing is fantastic. Argentinians should be proud they even manufactured aircraft at all considering their size! Most countries simply copied American or European designs to catch up rather than design their own planes
So what happened to Argentinian aerospace industry then?
Did it die when Tank left?
@@MostlyPennyCat You should ask: "What happened to Argentina then?"
And the consequences of populism are part of the answer about the huge and constant impoverishment of the country since the 40s.
@@MostlyPennyCat Leftists took over the country. They don't care for such things.
This kind of design would make a very striking private jet in this day and age, with no obvious engines it would draw attention everywhere it went.
I drew a plane like that but as a sci fi plane "concept" on my high school notebook, and I never knew this plane until now, just saying. Thank you for this video
This plane is so futuristic. :) I thought this was a 2030 plane concept.
Major mistake here, the Pulqui I was a design of an FMA team under a design office lead by French engineer Dewoitine. Tank was in Germany when the IAe. 27 first flew.
The Pulqui II was already in design when Tank was contracted by the FMA and took over the development behind doors with his own team applying his experience, much to the dislike of Argentine engineers. Fun fact, when he left, the project improved as the local team solved his errors that cause the first prototypes to crash.
Also the "courtesy" part of the British wasn't courtesy but DEBT, London had a 19,8 billion (fixed at current value) to Argentina by 1945 in supplies delivered during WWII. They were broke and couldn't pay, so they offered licenses, weapons, machine tools and obsolete scrap machines to pay off (they defaulted and Argentina condoned half the debt even). One of the licenses were the RR Nene turbine, which was a dead end and the licensed because they were moving to axial flow turbines. The turbine was the only one available in Argentina then it was chosen for the project in that arrangement.
excelent points!
Thank you for clearing up the confustion around the Pulqui I/II. As for the RR Nene engine: it was not as dead as you might think. The British also sold the design to Russia (the USSR back then) where it was built in large numbers (as the RD-45 and later as the VK-1) and extensively used in planes like the MiG-15/17 and the Il-28 bomber. Another licence built version was the J42 engine which powererd the Grumman F9F-2 Panther. The Nene engine was also used in licence built versions of the DH Vampire jet fighter (Australian and French).
Coming bac to civil aviation - a single Vickers Viking was converted to Nene engines in 1948 and used for some test flights...
Sounds like a lot of mistakes.
Would YOU consider doing a video?
@@martinsczepan3387 it was still a technological dead end, centrifugal engines fell out of usage quickly.
I've recently thought that a design like this would be ideal for a single ultra-high bypass ratio engine for a regional airliner. FOD ingestion would probably be an issue though.
Me seeing thumbnail; "Wow an ultra high bypass turbo fan! Brilliant."
Video; "...clustered five turbojet engines around the fuselage"
Me again; "Doah !"
super duper extra bypass engine on small aircraft... i wanted to make the same post but than i already saw one. i would also add it needs 2 engines that run the same fan. 1 engine is spinning and one is backup if something goes wrong because not sure if people would want 1 engine only when going over sea. i mean it can be private jet easily too for super duper extra range.
@@rong1924 Darn. :( We need a single engined plane with rear mounted engine.
The arrangement actually kind of resembles a Dyson fan which could give an effect similar to bypass? Any aerodynamicists here?
@@noeoep yea, the best you can get is 2.2 to one.
Nice video. As an argentine I love to see some designs from my country.
But, there are some mistakes.
First: I.Ae. 27 Pulqui I was designed by Émile Dewoitine. The one designed by Kurt Tank was the I.Ae. 33 Pulqui II (Based on the Ta 183, but modified to use an english Nene II engines).
Second: the Revolucion Libertadora (coup against Peron) was in 1955, not 1958.
After the war Argentine recieve no more than five Nene engines from England. At that time we couldn't reverse engineer them like the russians did (Klimov VK-1). This plane would have used them all. This is only one of the many reasons this plane could never have been mass produced in Argentina.
The same goes for the Pulqui 2. Only five prototypes were ever built, one reserved for static testing, and four flying prototypes, all of them practically handmade.
This airliner merely suffers from chronic boundary-layer indigestion. Just needs some aerospace-grade Pepto Bismol. 👍
Boundary layer injestion was the whole point of this engine configuration. Ingesting the boundary layer let's you get more thrust for less power because you're accelerating "slower" air. Torpedoes use this same phenomenon to great effect.
Exactly. It reduces the output of the engines but increases overall performance by drag reduction
@@martylawson1638 The boundary layer ingestion effect is considered to be a problem specifically for normal turbofan engines, where the varying intake velocity across the face of the engine causes rapidly cycling stresses on fan blades and thus, drastically reduces lifetime of said blades.
This particular configuration I imagine would be free from such a problem, as the diameter of the inlets of the engines is significantly smaller than a turbofan, reducing the possibly for stress differential, not to mention that I think centrifugal compressor stages are significantly less sensitive to differential intake velocity than fans.
A modern design housing just a single massive turbofan in the rear would also be fine with ingesting boundary layer air, as the inherent symmetry of the arrangement would mean that intake velocity only varies by radius instead of by angle.
However, I don't think you could convince somebody to build this concept. The advantages of the current layout are significant. More engines means more safety. Engines under the wings can be easily maintained, removed, and replaced; not so with a tail engine. Spreading out the weight of the plane over the wing surfaces (by putting fuel, engine in/on the wings instead of the fuselage) reduces the stress on the wings, allowing you to cut weight from wing structures. A 10 or 15% imporvement in fuel economy is not going to outweigh all the problems, and there are likely better ways to try for fuel economy (lifting body airliners, for one).
@@J7Handle I think it is quite elegant that on a fighter you pull the engine out the rear and have it all in plain sight. 1:19 is just mad: You would sure need a splitter. Feed the out air into the jet engines and the boundary layer into an aft fan. Also I though that radial compressors have large lateral area? I would expect some staggering like in the English Electric Lightning. I wonder what that groove at 1:10 is. The air outside the boundary layer needs to be directed towards the center ASAP -- before a new boundary layer builds up.
Today NASA calls this technique "Boundary Layer Ingestion Propulsion" and it can save 8.5% in fuel consumption. The centrifugal engines are indifferent to poor boundary layer flow. Aircraft like the F-35 also don't need boundary layer splitters.
Another great video, the extremely strange pronunciations of "DeHavilland" aside. The noise of those early turbojets would have been unbearable positioned inside the fuselage but as Herr Dr. ing. Tank was used to military aviation that was probably not very significant. In terms of early jetliners, the DeHavilland Comet only flew 13 days ahead of the Avro Canada Jetliner, a fascinating project that is pretty forgotten in comparison to the overrated Avro Arrow, and would be worth a feature on its own.
apart from that, Córdoba is pronounced CORdoba, not corDOba, and Pulqui is pronounced Pulky, the U is silent after a Q in Spanish
You didn't hear how he also pronounced "Messerschmitt", then.
@@chucku00 I know from previous videos that any German name is a step too far (we all loved "Luftwaffle") so I did not mention the Messerschmitt mangling. On the other hand, De Havilland Australia was the first overseas subsidiary of that British company so I thought that might not be so much of a challenge!
@@chucku00 6:48 Messer-Mitch lmao
@@mcs699 That's not the issue. The issue is that the narrator doesn't know how to speak english, and therefore shouldn't be a narrator. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look up the pronunciation of words you can't pronounce. This is a huge problem with youtube. Lots of channels use narrators who can't be bothered to do their "job" properly.
Not to mention all the incorrect information they spew out like it's fact.
Pointless questions as to the 'flaws'. The early British turbojets were centrifugal designs, and quite chubby - the passenger cabin could not have had 5 of these beasts around the outside of them. The passenger cabin seats would probably have ended where the last row of windows with the rear pressure bulkhead being not too much further aft of that.
Surely the windowless back of the cabin was intended for luggage only. And why would it be hot during flight with all those ventilation gaps? Had they found a problem like that, the next model of it would simply have had wider gaps.
There are always some problems to work out with completely new designs.
Ryanair (or spirit airlines in t us) would just use t space 2 sell seats at 9.99 each...then after takeoff charge 99.99 for ear plugs
The windowless section would need to be fuel tank in order to achieve the range stated. The wing tanks alone would not have been enough to fuel five very thirsty centrifugal flow turbines. Interesting note: This type of jet engine was very loud and very fuel thirsty. However, they were extremely reliable. There are a few that are nearly seventy years old, that still fly occasionally. As well as a number of them in aviation museums around the world that are demonstrated on test stands.
@@ytcensorhack1876 🤣😂🤤😂🤣 That sounds like a solid business model for them.
@@bob2161 Spirit airlines, our cabin noise is so loud, you won't hear the baby crying in the seat next to you.
@@ytcensorhack1876 That sound great. They should advertise that they can transport any number of infants, but that they guarantee that passengers will never hear any crying.
You lost me at "Dehelevand" comet, rather than DeHavilland. I couldn't stop laughing after that.
You should have kept going. It got better. Messemitch, a once famous German aircraft manufacturer was mentioned. However the man knows his limitations and wisely didn’t attempt Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm.
@@manuwilson4695 its a botted voice
@@manuwilson4695 oh sorry
In my headcanon I consider that an unintentional reference to an argentinian UA-camr and aviation enthusiast who also struggles to pronounce the names of aerospace companies. That "mesermitch" sounds too similar to be coincidence.
Partial redemption at 2:22
I am an argentinian pasionate about our historic national aerospace development, but let me tell you, I've never heard about the IA36 Condor. Seems very strange how the pane is called the same way as the secret supersonic missile program. I hope to see more Argentinian aviation videos, you could even make one about the "Narangero" IA 38 made by one of the Horten brothers and was actually built and used. It was eventually destroyed in a fire, but a video about it would definetly be interesting!
I love the fact Argentina was so innovative and basically came out of nowhere in the aero industry in the 50s. There are some amazing Argentinian aircraft that differ so much from the yanks and my own nation (Britain) designs. One of my all time favourite aircraft is the amazing Pucara. Keep well brother.
@@Rich77UK bro you're really cool, and you have a Pucara in Britain, if I'm not wrong, so you don't have to travel here to see one lol
@@Rich77UK well it wasn't exactly out of nowhere. Argentina was a pioneer nation in aeronautics, the pre WWII air shows were one of the most important internationally, lots of early records were made in Argentina. The first helicopter to take off was the Pateras Pescara N12 in Buenos Aires during WW1. It won prices in Paris and London, long before anyone knew about Sikorsky or Bell.
By the 1920s the aircraft factory was set and started producing licensed planes from UK, France, Germany and the US, then local designs started with small simple monoplanes, derivatives, and new designs. By the 1940s Argentina produced licensed fighters, training and mail aircraft, light attack planes, heavy fighters/attackers, transport and light bombers.
There was even guided bombs and missiles!.
@@Rich77UK they "came out of nowhere" because of all the literal Nazis that fled there.
@@Argentvs lol yeah nah. It's because of the Nazis. Also, it's the 🇫🇰
I'm fairly certain that it was Emile Dewoitine, and not Kurt Tank, who designed the FMA I.Ae. 27 Pulqui I. The Pulqui I had such terrible performance (Emil Dewoitine did not take the transition from propeller to turbine power very well) that the project was scrapped and the FMA I.Ae. 33 Pulqui II, an entirely new design by Kurt Tank, was selected instead. The only commonality the Pulqui I and Pulqui II shared was the name "Pulqui" itself.
You are right.Pulqui I was designed by Dewoitine.
"-That was cute" (Reimar Horten after the construction of the I.Ae. 38 Naranjero prototype, a four-engine flying wing specialized in the transport of ... oranges)
Greetings from Argentina from a fan of unbuilt aircraft projects.
You go on for awhile about the problems with the plane being passengers sitting in the engine section, but I think it's very obvious the passenger compartment doesn't extend past the wings.
yes, sometimes it is like asking a housewife about the main flaws of a jet driven car, of course it is the missing makeup mirror
Interesting, but...
1. Maintenance nightmare
2. Safety nightmare -- Any catastrophic loss of one engine would doom the aircraft
3. I'd be very concerned about the long term structural integrity of the tail assembly
Exactly - one engine cuts off and you have four engines blasting the side of the airframe with hot exhaust gasses. There is no way this would work in practice.
I thought this.. access to the engines for maintenance would be pants. Maybe potential temperature issues depends on engineering although the 1950's was limited in materials.
@@doggonemess1 Yet it wouldn't create asymmetric thrust, which is a huge huge advantage of this design.
Had it been refined it might have beat out wing mounted engines.
The range was not an issue, even in 1966, when my family flew from Buenos Aires to Madrid on either a B707 or DC-8 the trip had stops at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and Dakar, Senegal because of the range. Each stop meant debarkation since the plane had to be refueled for each successive leg. Before that, Recife, close to the westernmost tipo of Brazil was a frequent stop.because planes couldn't make it to Dakar from anywhere else. In 1961 a trip to New York took us via Rio de Janeiro, La Guaira (Venezuela), Miami and finally NYC. Finally, the project was cancelled in 1958 but the Revolución Libertadora had been in 1955 so they might not have been related to one another.
I also imagine, with the engines incased into the fuselage lake that, that maintenance would be a nightmare. It's one of the main reason low-wing designs with underslung engines have always been so popular in the industry, so a plane with such hard-to-reach mechanicals would likely turn off a lot of airlines.
Underwing engines just didn’t work with centrifugal compressor engines which had air intakes at both the front and center of the engine. Turbofans changed that.
i don't think that would've posed much of a problem if they made the entire rear of the aircraft easy to remove as one assembly.
@@Draco_Alpha Like the MiG 15/17, Sabre etc…
@@Draco_Alpha Indeed.
Fan from Argentina here. Watching your videos since you had around 20k subs. 👏🏻🍻 Thank you
Welcome back! i can't believe it! Es ridicule !
Damb that looks soooo good. Such a shame Argentina couldn't keep the R&D into aircraft going. This and the Pucara are fantastic aircraft ideas.
Need breeds such fantastic ideas, the pucara was made for anti-guerilla warfare, it's lethal against infantry but lacks in air-to-air combat, the FAL shows this too, it's reliable and cheap, and has several configurations perfect for argentina, sadly once the economy went to shit all of the argie "wonder weapons" stopped being produced, i'm pretty sure that if argentina had a buffed economy at the time, all that sweet advanced german engineering with argentinian ingenuity would've made it a super power.
@@somefurryguy1811 Pucara was Argentinean indigenous design but FAL not, it was a Belgian invention and one of the most widespread weapon concepts in history
@@MrLaizard IIRC the argentinians nationaly produced the FAL, they had a specific variant too, can't recall what the differences were tho.
8:00 Put the galley back there. Use it for storage! The front would only be used for passenger travel and make it high class. Your not gonna cram a bunch of seats in this thing so make it a business class jet. Its actually a cool design.
The design is 'wonky and scary' and it was 'a good thing it wasn't produced' but the only problems mentioned were just some theoretical ones for the passengers at the back, wherever that was.
No actual flight problems or even potential flight issues are mentioned at all in the video.
As nice as the video was put together, I have to agree with you. I came out of this thinking. "So what´s the problem apart from the passengers that would not be sitting in that compartment anyways?" Thanks for making that vid anyways.
This design is a Learjet with the engines moved inboard and intake arranged like some fighter jets !
so comfort is the only issue? What about using this design for cargo delivery drone: put one high-bypass engine at the back, add "chomper" style openable nose to quickly load/unload cargo. Not having people on board would allow to take on additional risks: non standard aerodynamics solutions and using only one engine.
Yes more information about flight problems would be interesting. I assume the weight of 5 engines at the rear might make it a bit difficult to fly (given how short the aircraft is) I imagine it would suffer from similar issues to the Comet as well i.e. engine maintenance would be pretty difficult.
Rear engines will probably produce a lot of heat potentially weakening the body over time/increased risk of a fire.
@@solarissv777 i was thinking the same thing, you can scale this thing up or down, and would be attractive for Naval Carrier cargo since if the engines are not on the wings you can have the wings fully foldable and saving so much space
Great video. Very interesting and well researched. Only found one mistake, the Revolución Libertadora (or as we call it "Fusiladora") took place in 1955, not '58.
Hope to see more videos of our unfinished projects... that we have so many!
That "revolution" (dictatorial coup) was the origin of all decadence in Argentina
@@MrLaizard Yes. Enter IMF, say goodbye to industrialization and advanced research of any kind. My poor country lives a slow-motion massacre since. Thanks for your words.
I think the design is very good, today we can have a single engine (with large fan, hi bypass) in same fuselage configuration. The air flow around the fuselage is optimized, increasing the eficience and the modern turbo fan engines have extremely low cases of failures. Cheap, efficient.
You find stuff that Ive never even heard before, it's pretty amazing! Also, another great video man
if F&E correctly pronounces every word os his script, it's not our beloved host. this became a charm of this channel.
I really do try!
@@FoundAndExplained the phonetic alphabet does help a lot with it
@@FoundAndExplained Missamitch -> Mess-a-smith, Heliphant -> The Heavyland
Please correct this part of the story : The Pulqui I was not designed by Kurt Tank. Was designed by (french) monsieur Dewoitigne. It was very uncapable plane, even for his time. Viewing such non satisfactory desing, argentine autorities convocated Mr. Tank. A totally new plane was designed, the Pulqui II, a very succefull machine this time. Nice video, Congrats !!
Also, another needed correction.
The British aircraft company that designed and built the Comet, and many other aircraft, is; De Havilland. It is pronounced; dee•hav•eh•land
There were two times in this video when de Havilland was referenced, and two different pronunciations were used. They were both wrong. This is not some obscure, little known aircraft company. Today there are de Havilland aircraft being used by a number of well recognized airlines around the world. This includes North America and Europe. Any true aviation enthusiast and/or historian is going to be well aware of this. Certainly a well versed documentarian should be as well.
I'm pretty certain you would never refer to a;
Boing 747,
McDonald's Dugless DC-10,
Suki 29,
Lock head SR-71,
Gunman Wildcat,
Mug 21,
Hooker Hurricane,
Pooper Cub,
Chestnut 172,
Messyshit 262,
Auntie Noph 225,
Phuka Wolf 109,
Mick 15,
Door Knocker 128,
Or the ever infamous, and supersonic;
Conquered
Your videos look reasonably good, better than average. It is obvious that considerable time, effort, and money are spent in production. It seems a shame to go through all that effort and expense, then have such an audio deficiency. Perhaps enlist the services of a proof reader/viewer with some aviation history knowledge.
The words spoken are an important part of a documentary. When the words contain blatant errors it calls the quality of the entire documentary into question. I'm confident that you can do better than this.
Please, don't be more concerned with how fast you can pump them out, than with the quality of what you're pumping out.
Looking forward to the next.
@@bob2161 really though he pronounced multiple things wrong.
Hahaha pooper cub.
Pulqui I was perfectly comparable with jet planes of his time, like NAA Fury I or Supermarine Attacker or J-21R...
And Pullqui II was far from satisfactory, with the same fatal flaw than the MiG-15 (and the Ta-183) : his elevator design (only the J-29 had it corrected) !
I think a twin engine turbofan design like Mirage V in rear could make a mid range passenger jet capacity of approximately 50 people. T shaped tail would be better.
For extra safety, they can attach two or four large parachutes back and fron of the fuselage. In emergency time after failing all kinds of strategies, pilot will hit the switch and wings & rear engine part will be jettisoned. Then the whole fuselage will be landed by parachutes.
Interesting genius super single engine. I was just thinking up a concept similar to this, only instead of a loop open rear gills, a side vent cadge that causes the filtering ramjet intake strains, while no drag side surface, only the body would be replicate to the super sonic Concord mid wings & front attributes.
Things I never knew about the airline that I flew all my life, and my mother worked in... Thanks for the awesome info!🤗
2:58 Finally circles are drawn right! All the other videos I've seen had perfect circles on distorted maps, so they didn't correspond to the areas actually in range.
Being an immigrant to Argentina I found this extra fascinating, I'm surprised I'd never heard of it!
I'm not really seeing the fatal flaw here aside from the inefficient use of space compared to engines mounted outside the fuselage. If you did the ducting correctly, the cold air blasting by the engines at 500 mph should keep that section of the aircraft at a manageable temperature.
Imagine servicing those engines enclosed in the fuselage.
2:42 The Cockpit look similar to B-29.
What a wonderful video as always ,loved the landing animation and the animations in general .Also congrats on 200k subscribers .Keep up the great work mate .
Thanks a ton! and thank you for being an active moderator all this time :)
I would literally have no ideas any of these planes existed without you. Thank you for enlightening me
I love how the intakes are arranged, curious how the weight balance would've been.
This channel deserves at least 5mil
Great video as always! One thing I've noticed is that you keep mispronouncing Messerschmitt as "Messer-Mitch" when in reality it is "Messer-Shmitt".
...and several ordinary words. He needs to practice his pronunciation before making the video.
His animations are great, the topic is interesting, the content good, the script is alright. I even like his speaking voice. But far out, that was a lot of mispronunciations for one video.
I think he needs to give it to Patreon subscribers first, and they should help him correct these. Or just google for how words he is not familiar with should sound.
Passenger planes are designed to carry passengers. A fuselage filled with engines, results in a lot less passenger capacity;
hence reduced profits. Engines out on the wings make them much easier to work on and replace. Engines all packed together
could result in massive engine loss if just one engine exploded.
Your graphics team is great. I flew an MD80 sitting next to the rear engines. Really felt the turbines threw the cabin wall.
Where did the turbines throw the cabin walls to?
@@bob2161 Sorry in fact we landed at Reagan National Airport in Washington DC. Always felt Reagan was like landing on an aircraft carrier. The MD80 provided a unique sense of an aircraft turbine in flight. Lots of vibration and noise and a direct perception of the engines being throttled.
@@josephpiskac2781🤣😂🤤😂🤣 As often as I've flown in and out of that airport, that's the best description I've heard.
Looking out the window, "Man, that water just keeps getting closer and closer." You see a boat flash by, "That guy was drinking a Coor's Light."
Then the runway lights rush past the window followed immediately by big jolt, a loud thud, and the sudden roar of twin jet engines going for all their worth, backwards. For the next 4½ seconds it sounds and feels as if the universe is still deciding; Have you crashed, or just landed? Finally, the decision is made followed by the announcement, "Ladies and Gentlemen, we would like to welcome you to the Nation's capital and Reagan National Airport... "
I know what you mean about the engine on the wall though. For a 12 year period of my life, I made two trips a month into that airport. (It was Washington National in the beginning. It was only renamed Ronald Reagan the last 2 or 3 years I was flying there.) I was either on a DC-9 or a 727 when I flew in or out. Both of those have the engines mounted to the rear in a similar fashion. My flying companions and I used to joke that the airlines must hire Navy pilots to fly their DCA flights. However I never made the carrier connection until reading your comment. Now I'm wondering how I ever missed it. 😑
8:06 they would've called that section the oven, especially given the background of the designer
I must point out some mistakes on the video. First of all, Pulqui I was built prior to Kurt Tank's arrival to Argentina, and it was designed with a Dewoitne turbine and help from the french itself. Later on, the Pulqui II was developed in a cooperative effort between Tank and argentinian engineers, based on the latest Kurt Tank's design before the end of WWII, the Ta 183 plus the Pulqui I ideas. Also Peron was thrown out of government by a coup in 1955, not 1958. This bunch of generals and navy members destroyed all the research and prototypes made in Argentina, even though the Pulqui II was equal or better than MIg 15 or american Sabre F 86. Why? I have some ideas, but the first that comes to mind is treason, because they chose to buy F 86 from the Korean war, wich never arrived in total and only ten years after, in 1965. Argentina lost its chance to be an air power because of that coup.
That "revolution" (dictatorial coup) against democratically elected Juan Peron, was ultimately the origin of all decadence in Argentina
@@MrLaizard I do agree.
As a Argentinian it's lovely watch something about my country in this chanel.
Cheers!
A design such as this would be very expensive in terms of engine maintenance. This is why engines embedded into wings (such as is found in the DH Comet) were not widely adopted, despite the aerodynamic advantages.
The maintenance nightmare. Imagine one of that 5 engines explodes in mid-flight, like LOT 5055, what will happen to the plane?
Just one thing. The coup that overthrew Peron was in 1955, and the regime it imposed ended in 1958.
That "revolution" (dictatorial coup) against 1946 democratically elected( and 1952 re-elected) Juan Peron, was ultimately the origin of all decadence in Argentina
Do you say things like "Dehollowvan Comet" just for the boost in engagements that comes with people like me freaking out about it? 🤓
the main flaw would have been , that all 5 angled engines had to run consistently to mediate the exhaust flow straight out of the plane. in case of a malfunction the exhaust fire would have touched the hull certainly causing its destruction.
There's a reason why rear engined liners fell out of favor over time. FOD ingestion and maintenance access are just two points which are still valid today. Airlines care all about running costs... 😉✌️
let's be clear that the airlines really don't care about maintenance access per se, they care about the presumed longer downtimes because maintenance would take more time with less accessible components. Basically, the airlines WILL make something a pain in the ass for maintenance if they think it will make them more money. I know you probably know this. The other folks reading may not
excellent video, greetings from Argentina
Funny enough I’ve thought about a design like this, except it just uses a single high bypass turbofan. It’d be really efficient I thought.
Not quite. Notice that the air intakes on all modern fighter jets is slightly separated from the fuselage so as to let the boundary layer pass by and avoid sucking it into the engine.
With the single-engine how would they get the control lines back to the tail feathers?
@@rconger384 I mean, you would go around the engine obviously
That doesn't necessarily mean the lines go outside the airframe and so on.
Your channel is growing! Nice. I remember you having 10k subs
Interesting. Someday I will be build it in ksp. Thank you for the video!!
Quite an interesting design! I feel like I've seen somewhat similar designs in video games that consider it futuristic.
Great job! And kudos for not using robot voices. It’s difficult to read off a complex script but just work on your pronunciation a bit. Never heard of this plane before and it’s a fascinating insight into the beginning of the jet-age. They really were working from a blank sheet! I believe Kurt Tank ended up in India overseeing their aeronautical industry.
Ok this is best video of the day. This is awesome work!
Your animations are getting very good, but that landing was a bit scuffed lol
That landing was straight up terrifying!
windy day!
@@FoundAndExplainedWindy you say?
More like a full blown typhoon! 😄
As an argentinian myself i find really cute and respectable that when you name a thing that is in spanish terms, you dont translate them to english but indeed say them in spanish. Great videos ! Love your work as always!!
Why? Good translations are important for understanding and clarity. You use the word respectable when you clearly mean respectful. Translation is important.
I would like to see this design exist now. Especially considering the fact that a High bypass turbofan engine can easily fit in there
The rotating mass would be difficult to control
Hi. The Condor project was initially devised with a requirement for accessibility and reparation of an engine during flight (!). We must to consider that though this requirement is absurd during OUT TIME, it was an idea before the second world war, in order to compensate the problem of complex machinery failures (no six sigma during that time). In addition, there was the idea of isolating the engines at the back of aircraft so that the noise will be reduced, which was the second requirement of the stakeholder (Beechcraft starship anyone?). P.S. When we study aircraft we must consider them with respect to their requirements at the time, not to our knowledge at this time.
The major problems I see would have been:
1) That the air intake went completely around the fuselage which would make it subject to FOD (foreign object damage)
2) 5 engines in the back would make the aircraft extremely tail heavy
3) The fuel consumption of those 5 engines would never allow for a 5000Km range in an airframe like the one proposed.
Additionally, any kind of explosive engine failure could escalate into losing the entire tail of the plane fairly easy with all five engines so close together, effectively inside the fuselage directly below the tail.
2) depend on where you place the wings "move the center of gravity"
3) Yes its probebly very generously calculate, but it the plane do also have a extream low drag nose and "build in" engines
A nice video about Argentine airline plane FMA IA I 36 ...CONDORS plane with label 🏷 its back ground historical creature also its characteristics for its power ,comfortable & safe character thanks for sharing 👍
the DeHoerVan Comet
First 10 seconds: you get world's biggest enemy
Dehaviland* Comet
Thanks for the video. We have one of those Rolls Royce Jet engines in display y La Plata, Argentina. In the Aerospace Engineering University.
About the Pulqui (pronounces like ' pull - key ' ) it was extremely similar to the russian MIG, but, like any othe small country. Many projects were overthrow, and I don't mean by the internal turmoil and dictatorship.
Argentina's space race was also quite advanced for a small South American country, but it had an hiatus too long and couldn't keep up
That "revolution" (dictatorial coup) against democratically elected Juan Peron, was ultimately the origin of all decadence in Argentina
The cabin would definitely not have reached back between the engines. The last seat would have been where the last window is. Did you even watch your own video? The drawings show it and there is no reason to believe they are far away from being realistic.
Heat is no problem, it can be shielded by bypassing air. But the room between the engines is not as big as it looks. Maybe it can be used as a cargo compartement.
You don't even mention the two big problems of that engine installation. One is, the intake on the lower side is extremely prone to sucking in alls sorts of stuff from the runway. That is highly unhealthy for the engines. It is no coincidence that a design with intakes in the direct dirt spray zone of the undercarriage never had been even close to successful. Most designs with intake configurations like that have never been built in reality. The other is, the huge exhaust nozzle shared by all engines loses a huge amount of its effectiveness as soon as one or more engines is not running. It is just way too big for the exhaust gasses of the remaining engines. When only 4 out of 5 engines are running, thrust will be well below 4/5 and things get worse with every additional shut down engine.
That design had no chance to be a success.
Stop mass production, go to quality, take time to think. And stop those fast cuts and zooms. The used graphics can tell the viewer a lot when he gets the chance to study them.
@ZeoX effort does not excuse misinformation though.
@@rrenkrieg7988 Dude, it's a fucking UA-cam video, not a paid tv subscription.
Are you the type that ask for truffles at a hawker stalls?
@@trueinnovator7207 unless the hawker tries to fucking hawk TRUFFLE (INSERT FOODSTUFF HERE) from his stall i'm free to expect some fucking truffles
@ZeoX it does NOT take him a lot of time to put these together. Lol look at his release schedule. It's INSANE. The guy is crapping these things out like goose turds on a nice lawn.
Great video!! It´s exciting to see a project from my country. It would be great to see a video from IA-37 Delta, a prototype of a future fighter capable of mach 2, designed by Reimar Horten. Keep the good job!
Reimar Horten was also stripped of all his design and project duties by the criminal dictatorial coup in 1955
Instead of five normal engines, how about one big ring-shaped engine going all the way around?
My guess is that they could not make turbine blades that size.
Minimal aviation redundancy and FAA rules.
It looks super clean and at least at the beginning of the video looks spectacular and super aerodynamic not having the added drag from engines hanging on the wings. Also even though it was small that could’ve developed wide bodies
"Argentinian ambition"
Me an Argentinian: oh, well thats gonna crash and burn spectacularly
There's something about this design which seems to warrant another look. With modern materials and a few tweaks it just might work. Thanks, I was totally unaware of this airliner and its history.
Great job!
The Dehalivand Comet? What's that then?
And what is Messermitch? 06:48
This video is a peek into the universe where Spock has a beard.
@@JoeOvercoat Well Elon Musk is Time’s Man of the Year, so we are through the looking glass, Toto.
Kurt Tank really was a man with a moved history
If they won WW2 this would be quite comparable to what would be flying around
Always interesting to see in Argentina what 1950+ Nazi aircraft designs would've looked like had they held out
One can only wish.
@@uberalles9797
Not really.
Great work!
Idea and realisation.
What a pity of so many errors : Pulqui I was a design of Emile Dewoitine, and the coup was in 1955.
De Hell-a-van...
Script, wtf.
Wrap around Confirmation...
Actually, I am starting to worry about the alarming number of narration issues. Is the original script written in a different language then translated in english with google?
I love the content, believe me, but can't you ask someone to proof read the scripts of your videos before recording the narration?
He has a nice “advertising” voice but pronunciation is often wrong. A pity.
Nice content as usual. Keep up the good work.
your pronunciation of the german words makes me shudder.
....and the English words!
Interesting, as an Argentinian I found it very interesting and surprised as I never heard of such FMA such proyect, keep them comino.
Any way to do one similar on FMA IA-58 Pucara?
How was this plane balanced, with 5 engines concentrated in the tail?
You see the grey nose bit? Lead sphere. Just gotta balance it out ya know?
Soviet already did 4 engine tail-mounted, and it's larger. Yet pretty successful passenger plane at that time
@@bocahdongo7769 What aircraft are you referring to, exactly?
@@JoeOvercoat probably Il-62 (with a stand ofc)
@@JoeOvercoat the Ilyushin IL-62. There was a British Jet called the VC-10 that had a similar configuration
That's such an awesome design.
Kurt Tank, the father of the Focker Wulf 190. During World War II, Tank was one of the most important designers of fighter aircraft for the German Air Force. In 1939 he began designing the Fw 190 Würger single-seater fighter, which from 1941 became the Luftwaffe's second standard fighter alongside the Messerschmitt Bf 109. The further development of the Fw Ta 152 was only used occasionally in 1945. Both were among the best fighter planes of their time. At the end of the war he developed the groundbreaking Fw Ta 183 Huckebein jet fighter. The prototypes and design documents captured by the Allies strongly influenced the development of the Soviet MiG-15 and the US F-86.
"Dahallivand"? @ 0:32
then
"Dehavilland" @ 2:22
"Sao Pablo"? (Sao Paulo) 3:09
"Missermitch"? (Messerschmitt) 6:49
🤷😆
Finally I can enjoy a properly narrated video!
Fantastic video
Hello, the DH106 Comet was actually built, put in service and lasted until the '80s.
The same can be said for many other planes of that era.
Few passengers traveling in full jet-luxury was already a reality as soon as Comets/BOAC started to fly in service from 1952 onwards.
What an amazing design! So, noise and heat buildup. Darn.
It looks to be a very aerodynamic solution to have engines mounted under the wings. The profile is clean.
Maybe in this day and age of electric aircraft it could be a feasible design.
I´m from Argentina and never heard of this one!!
Thanks for the information and great production quality! Also it´s a shame that our populist and then military governments at the time wasted such a chance to make our country relevant in such a high tech industry as aviation, maybe we could be the ones making Embraer planes rather than Brazil!!
That Condor is absolutely beautiful.
Here from Argentina. Thank you for the vid! Surprised :)
My favourite!
Great informative video. It was interesting to see. Fantastic presentation. Liked and subbed.
Wow soy de Argentina y mi abuelo trabajo en FADEA, pero nunca me enteré de este prototipo.
As a Captain for major freight carrier, I'd have reservations flying engines of that era & arranged around each other as they were about the possibilities of one engine having a catastrophic engine and damaging one or more additional engines. Having wing or tail mounted engines diminishes that type of disaster. Sure wouldn't want to rely on an annular engine arrangement on a Cat 3a approach!
1:32 it doesnt look like shedding a shell to me
It remind me of my childhood
I put my pen cap on behind of the pen
and give it a ruler as wing
and cutout paper as aileron
I remember my playing during the lunchbreak XD
With today's technology you could use that design, and make a really awesome aircraft. The back of the aircraft that is surrounded by engines could have wraparound LED TVs, and noise canceling tiles. I got this really lightweight noise canceling insulation for my music room, and it works amazingly well. We even have these panels that we fit up against the windows when it's going to get loud, and you can't hardly hear anything outside of the house.