I smiled through these clips simply because I saw the earnest desire of man for flight and the courage in which was displayed by their steadfastness. They were indeed pioneers and worthy of respect and appreciation. Thanks, fellas!
I wouldn't say these are hilarious. These guys were pioneers. Even if some of them "failed", they proved what could or could not be done, and it was back to the drawing board. You never know til you try. It's because of people like this, that within 69 years (1900-1969), we went from the horse and buggy to the moon. Pretty remarkable.
*@Jamie Livingston.* I agree 1000%. Great respect to each one of them. The last one should have worked on his diet first. 😉 But at least his friends had bucket of water ready...just in case.
Agreed. As a former ultralight flight instructor, I was amazed to see that early aircraft that looked very similar to an MXL2 Sport Quicksilver Ultralight I flew in the 1990s.
The Sky Car had me rolling on the floor along with birdmsn and bicycle guy. There were some pretty neat ones that did fly maybe a bit strange on design but they did fly. Some were just not thought out well. Like when we were kids and jumped from a height with cardboard wings LOL
3:21 The Flying Barrel might be the most perfect flying machine of its time. Considering when that was built, how well it flew, and how similar it was in structure to later jet engines....that guy was thinking!
The only one problem I can see is that if the engine loses power, the aircraft also loses most of its steering (no thrust over the tail). Just make the rudder and elevator extend out past the cowl, and it looks like a solid design! :3
@@jamesgizasson well air is still flowing though te duct, so there is still control. It will be less because the rudders are designed to get the strong flow of the running engine, but still sufficient.
While some of these early ideas were kinda off the wall, but when you look at the tech of the time they were quite inventive. And if you look at the time line from 1910 to 1960 it is rather amazing that early examples of trying to fly and in 50 years there were jet aircraft and rockets going into space, it's quite amazing when you think about it.
Agreed. As a former ultralight flight instructor, I was amazed to see that early aircraft that looked very similar to a Quicksilver Ultralight I flew in the 1990s. ua-cam.com/video/b4gSy4byV-8/v-deo.html
Amazing yes, but the real amazement is the true "fly-ability by all these "odd" shapes. The shapes are still valid in today's aircraft, like AWACS, helicopters, VTOL, and the small drone that flew on Mars.
Flying barrel is absolutely amazing. Nothing is funny about this, these guys were nothing short of pioneers, geniuses, and how much I love aviation, you could even say they're my heros.. if it won't for these guys we wouldn't be where we are today
I like how the film was called "Aeronautical Oddities" and the very first one is basically a common modern Ultralight. It shows how the world of flight has changed over the years.
oh yeah, and the later pedal-powered ultralight? it just needed a real propellor and not that affront to aviation it tried using for propulsion. OOhhh...... actually..... since it's made of bike parts.... use a modified wheel with a dozen propellor blades instead of spokes. the ring around the outside will act as a safety feature too.
@@mandelorean6243the title is the literal title of video from the 1940s. Did you not see the title card in the beginning? They weren't looking for "clicks" in the 1930s although it was supposed to be light hearted entertainment for trainees. And these were odd compared to the state of the art at the time.
You dont think that had more to do with the fact that he was driving it around on the ground when a folded wing and then reconfigured it to aircraft configuration? If that a normal feature of ultralight planes today?
You say "hilarious", but many of these concepts are still undergoing study, showing that the people who created these planes were serious thinkers, ahead of the technology of their time.
The plane with the spinning drums did fly. Later a plane was developed with smaller spinning drums added to the leading edge of the wings. The flat planes were made several times and the idea led to the development of the twin-engine flying pancake by Vought. The only designs here that lead nowhere were ones like the ornithopter and whatever the grey goose was supposed to be. Strangely a large ornithopter design was tested in France but WWII ended it. A few years ago some guy built an ultralight version. It did get off the ground but it quickly flopped. The Sky car would have flown but 1,000lbs of lift isn't enough to get 1,500lbs of car into the air. If it did make it up, I want to know how he would have controlled it? If it wasn't for the pesky FAA this kind of tomfoolery would still be going on.
1 - Almost identical to a modern "ultralight" 2 - Canard wing aircraft - design still in use today 3 - Errr, no 4 - "Flying barrel" is a ducted fan engine - highly efficient - still used today 5 - Flying wing still used today (see B-2 and B-21 bombers) 6 - Errr, no 7 - Nothing revolutionary, just oddly-shaped biplane 8 - Nothing revolutionary, just oddly-shaped high-winged monoplane 9 - Variation on flying wing design (also see B-2 and B-21 bombers) 10 - Flapping wing toy birds have been around for MANY years 11 - Early mechanical auto-pilot 12 - Errr, no 13 - Alternate control surfaces - They work, but aren't as efficient or practical 14 - Errr, no 15 - Errr, no - but he DID invent the washing machine agitator 16 - Errr, no - but he DID invent the pork roast
@@Demonslayer20111 Yeah, 6 made me go... hunh???? how is that supposed to work? I'd love to see more. 7's wing shape is REALLY weird when you look carefully, I'd actually call it a tri-plane since it has TWO upper wing surfaces. but... yeah.. other than the unusual wing configuration, nothing really special. It has a rear mounted prop, but that's just a standard prop engine facing back. although... I think I've heard of it, and the idea was improved flight stability. But IIRC this test craft only worked at relatively low speed as the gaps between wings made massive turbulence at higher speeds. 9 is interesting since the vertical stabilizers are on the winglets, and it has no centrally mounted stabilizer. 12 is basically a pedal powered ultra-light... and people have those today.... but with REAL propellors.... not that crime against aviation. 13's high vertical stabilizer is seen in some modern designs actually.... the weird flaps not so much. 15 if it didn't bounce up and down it might have worked..... O it'd also need to have a fixed angle on the wind vanes. it looks like they were flattening into a closed position. that doesn't... oh wait.. that was the point.... this guy is trying to make lift by having a single wing flap. the bouncing is the attempt at flapping. But it can't flap fast enough to get lift. Hmm... weird idea..... weird as hell.... hmm.. if the prototype was half the weight.... maybe....
6th one . brilliant idea though not workable back then . rotating rolls instead of wings? tech wasnt light enough and motors not fast enough but this is the magnus effect principle and it does actually work (not back then) example : RC KFC bucket aeroplane (magnus effect) ua-cam.com/video/K6geOms33Dk/v-deo.html
The mechanical drive system for the spinning-umbrella sky car is an engineering feat in and of itself - it's amazing that it didn't shake itself apart within a few seconds. And, of course, they picked the fat man to ride the flying rocket-cycle
If that sky car copter had managed to get off the ground that inventor would have learned the hard (and dizzying) reason why helicopters needed tail rotors.
The design and craftsmanship that went into these creations is amazing. Without these visionaries we would not have the advancements of today. I applaud their skill, vision and courage. Truly not “hilarious” but rather inspirational. Please let your “Title” reflect their brilliance.
I know we're meant to point & laugh but some of those aircraft would make excellent home build projects. Like the first one. With modern materials that'd make a splendid microlight kit. With that rotating wing for storage / transport what's not to like? There were quite a few that seemed to be excellent flyers!
That was my thought, that it was very like modern ultralights. The tiny casters made me worried about them digging into soft surfaces; I would use about three or four times that wheel diameter.
Wow, it's wonderful to see these videos that were preserved from this period in aviation history! I thought they would be just the usual bunch of hopeless failures such as I've seen since I watched "Captain Kangaroo," but I've never seen some of these, and not only did they actually fly, they show the basic ideas of technologies which have since been used in advanced research and practical applications! This is great!
I can't say that I have seen a more elegant airframe design as the first aircraft. He drives the craft to the field, rotates the wing around the central spindle, attaches a couple of wires (control cables or stays? I am unsure) and off into the air he goes, and the craft appears to be completely stable. I don't even see any obvious control surfaces!
That one totally surprised me. When he came driving on the road I thought "how on earth is that supposed to fly?" Then, when he turned the wing I thought "oh! but still, how is he going to get it off the ground and safely back?" He sure shot down my doubts.
I was equally impressed. Slinging the fuselage below the wing makes the machine inherently stable, and 30 years later that tail design get used on the Liberator and Lancaster. Make it in modern technology and it could almost be a powered hang-glider.
I don't remember what number or name it had, but there was an X plane (experimental) by NASA or the FAA that had a swing wing like that that was, potentially at least, supersonic.
@@HeriEystberg same here....I expected an instant crash...but he left me in the dust with my mouth hanging open....it was a pretty elegant flyer too...
Ah man. I wish this guy at 11:00 was around to experience wingsuits today. Imagine seeing him getting his mind totally blown; flying around the mountains like an eagle.
That "barrel airplane" at 3:30 is really a ducted fan jet, often seen in R/C models of actual jets these days, thought true jet engines can be purchased (the engines are quite expensive for models!). From the side in flight it looked almost like the GeeBee Racers that came later!
well.. modern jet engines in real jets use the ducting principle as well. That fan blade on the front spins at RPM that would have blown the mind of the guy who made the barrel plane, but it's the same fundamental idea.
Very cool and innovative experimental aircraft. Early canards, ducted fan engine, flying pancakes, joined wing, rotating cylinders, and some just plain goofy ideas. So cool to see all these dudes dressed up in suits to show off and demonstrate their creations. The rocket bicycle was the best. Thanks for sharing.
I like the way the first pilot drives his plane over to the testing field, like he's out for a Sunday morning jaunt...and then proceeds to flip the wing around and take off. Some of these early ideas look crazy, but they actually worked. Even the tail-first plane--like a backwards Ascender, if that makes any sense--flew.
We owe a lot to these guys making the best of the technology available to them. People like this have made commercial aviation what it is today; safe and reliable.
Wow. What brave people. To take the risks that they took with no, or next to no safe guards is amazing. I do wish we could hear what they were saying about their crafts.
Having known what Aviation is and what it takes to design an airplane, I say these designs are no jokes and not hilarious. They are pure marvels and nothing less.
The first "swing wing" is actually very impressive, as is the second "Rutan - grandaddy" .... all these people were pioneers working within the tech limitations of the day, and breaking new ground. Plus, it was tough to get a machine off the ground with the added weight of the huge steel balls they carried !!!
The Rutan is exactly what it made me think of. They teased him calling it a plane with the tail in the back but they forgot that the Wright brother's first plane was a canard design. Amazingly the canard idea was being developed by almost all the major powers during WWII. The US, UK, Germany, Italy, and Japan all gave it a try. Britain even tried to develop a canard heavy bomber. It just wasn't the right design for a military aircraft. Although some will say the SAAB Gripen, and the Eurofighter Typhoon are canard aircraft but they are actually delta canards and not a pure canard aircraft.
@@stainlesssteelfox1 It's a cool one. There was a video about it recently. Much like the US canard aircraft they tried to innovate too much too soon. That was one of the factors that kept it from being finished. It's sad that they didn't get it to work perfectly. It would be cool if someone was able to finish it and see how it would have done against the US or the British canard aircraft.
Straight away you can tell which are engineers and which are clueless though, can't you? Then inbetween you have the Caproni ducted fan idea which is fine in principle, but the a/c is incapable of carrying any payload in it's prototype form. Has been likened to a Tiger Moth that's been dropped down a well..
ALL inventors are ahead of their time. Thats why they are called inventors. As I see it, there are no inventors, just discoverers. Why? because anything that is possible to do has been poosible to do since day one. All someone had to do was to discover how to do it.
@@HOOOLD_ON How many inventors invented things that were already invented before they invented something that wasn't? The ones who give up are the ones who become other things.
I think "hilarious" is the wrong word to use for this video. These men were geniuses considering how fresh the concept of Aviation was when this video was compiled.
I love how the early inventors tested these wacky aircraft in snazzy suits "It might be death by hilariously unstable flying machine, but I shall die dressed as a gentleman"
At Dec. 17, 1903 the Wright brothers made their first 'heavier than air' flight at 12 secs and 180 feet. At that time my granddad was 5 years old, and today we are talking about commercial space tourism? I cant really believe it, but it is what it is.
The ducted fan looked so stable. However, the designer of the windmill didnt seem to understand the basic principles of flight or aircraft design, but it did look entertaining.👍
The windmill contraption made no aeronautical sense to me. There were no lift devices or lift generating surfaces. That was actually a paddlewheel craft. Just not an aircraft. Paddlewheel is very low efficiency propulsion method. It only and barely works for marine propulsion because of water 's high density. Water is exactly 1000 X denser and heavier then air. Air is 20% Oxygen , 70 nitrogen , and rest is CO2 and trace atmospheric gases. We already have windmill aircraft. They are called helicopters. As a helicopter is windmill laying sideways on the ground.
The Stipa-Caproni was a demonstrator of the propulsor, which was being suggested for Zeppelins and huge all-wing transports where it could be buried in the wing. It flew well, as it was, and proved the propulsor worked.
Short clips from several of these films appeared at the start of "Those Magnificent men in Their Flying Machines" - its good to see the full versions here. Not all those crates were as crazy as they may seem - the 'canard' (tail first) layout was used on several successful pre WW1 machines. Likewise the one 'flying wing' resembles another successful Edwardian design; the first machine is almost a proto - ultralight and the 'freak' stubby fuselage delta wing had several experimental successors including one, I think, from Nazi Germany. Fortunately for the pilot the Sky Car didn't get off the floor - it had no horizontal or vertical stabilsers, or indeed apparent rudder! Early aircraft are fascinating - so many ideas to be tried out.
The flying barrel, was brilliant. He didn’t know it, but he created the first ducted fan engine nacelle. Now you see them on passenger jets. The flying wing is NOW the B2 bomber. I wish that they could see the advancements that they inspired now.
the guy who designed the barrel plane was a legit professional in the aeronautics industry back in his day. Hmm I wonder if he lived long enough to see the ducted fan idea get turned into jet engines?
A miracle the Sky Car stayed together, that was a violent design. And the rocket bike; see the guy light it with a match? And the rider outweighed all three of his helpers combined. Gotta love it.
The video felt like I was watching the trailer of Magnificent Men and Their Flying Machines, hilarious, but all credit to these pioneers and dreamers that we fly safe and go to war confident. Thank you for this upload. 👍
I'm actually amazed at how many of these I've already seen clips of, but how much these extended clips explained more clearly, despite the lack of audio. The "helicopter" sky car, for example: I always thought that was a solid metal umbrella, kind of like a giant cymbal. I never knew it was vaned to try and let air pass downwards through it. And I think in all of the other videos I've seen of the "ornithopter" flying off the bridge, I always assumed that it was either unmanned, or that the human was on top of the wing. I never before realized that the guy could have drowned right there if he couldn't get himself untangled fast enough!
@@lucasRem-ku6eb Huh? What DVD? I've seen most of these clips in abbreviated fashion in documentaries and museums over the years. Hence why I only ever saw shorter versions. I really appreciated the opportunity to see longer video segments with more context.
Like Wilber said to Orville after many earlier failed attempts “ Orville, don’t you think this is a lot of trouble to go through to get a date with a bunch of flight attendants ? “
What a brave men!! Once in my childhood there was a village fool that made wings and tried flying from high building. After crashing he said, With fools stuff you hurt yourself.
4:11 The "Spindle plane" is using the Magnus effect, so it's more like a short take-off and landing (STOL) aircraft. Hal DeBolt designed a radio-controlled model using the principle in the 1990s for "Model Air News."
5:00 I've often wondered about using the Magnus Effect in such a manner. It doesn't appear that they were able to achieve a high enough rpm to generate any significant lift however. Combine the weight of the materials and high weight to power ratios of the engines of that period, and there was really no plausible way for it to actually work. But I'd love to see what that inventor/engineer could have come up with using today's technology.
@@utjason8 Peter stripol had a magnus effect video that I never watched but now may. He’s built some electric ultralights and does some weird fun aviation stuff.
Let's take a minute to honor those brave men willing to take life by the tail and risking so much. Willing to go for it all and fly those machines for it's like the flying the SR 71 for the first time as death was just one mastake away
Nice to see the engineers/pilots nicely dressed in coat and tie. Different era, for sure. And oddly, most fly successfully. I built a total of 9 experimental aircraft, but admittedly, designed and proven by others. Noticed that a few are still flying. All of mine were more traditionally designed aircraft, 7 single seaters, two were two-seaters.
@@johnwaite3879 I "CAN" picture a wife saying, "Oh, I wish Tom would quit fooling around with that infernal flying machine thing out in the barn, and get a REAL job!"
The first one is familiar to me, due to growing up around ultralight aircraft. This is essentially the same design used in modern ultralight aircraft. The flying wing and tailless aircraft look like they could be the grandfathers of the B-2 bomber. Why did they put a 300-pound dude on the rocket bike??? That pretty much guaranteed a failure.
That Windmill plane is definitely "heavier than air." That "ducted fan" beer barrel plane is a solid performer! Hey that "flying wing" plane looks like "The Flying Flapjack" of World War II. A pair of counter-rotating spindles per side!? Can that "halo wing" plane pick up any radio signals? That round wing plane is another successful "flying flapjack." Hey Jack Northrop, that "no-tail" plane with vertical winglets looks awfully familiar. Uh-oh, the non-flying bicycle "eggbeater" looks like a paddle steamer ship on land! That French "tall tail" plane looks very maneuverable. Ah yes, the "bird man" with too little wing area and way too much tail. That "Sky Car" would be a great clothes washer/dryer, since it too is "heavier than air." Robert Goddard would be ROFLHAO at that "rocket bomb" device!
The flying wing was actually designed by a podiatrist in South Bend, Indiana and the three built had successful careers as flying billboards in Indianapolis.
The Arup S-2 from Indiana was remarkably successful as a flying machine. Sleek and quick on little power, astounding climb rate and 18 kts landing speed. Stall-spin proof. It flew for NACA in the '30s and Charles Zimmerman was on the NACA team that saw it. After that we used the planform for the V-173, which did not need the situation with the wing-tip props spinning outward. NACA tunnel tests showed that the V-173 did not gain anything with that arrangement versus normal 80 hp props spinning the other way. The Arup planes did everything the Vought did, much simpler.
This is actually sad to watch. This was an era when the average person wasn't afraid to take a chance, go out to their garage and build something that could either be ridiculous or fabulous. They were truly revolutionary and brave to put their lives in jeopardy flying something they built with their own hands. The average person today just wants to sit in their house and play video games.
@@Rob-fc9wg Considering I used to be a rework finish grinder on jet engine parts for precision cast parts I'd say it's you who doesn't know what a jet engine is. LOL, I was the last person to work on jet engine moving parts before we shipped them out to customers such as Boeing and U.S. government.
so....the flying wing was a thing before Hitler tried the Horton HO-229? also if you pay close mind some of these feature are actually on modern craft an example being the tail less plain (it had a tricycle landing gear) or the thingy at 10:53 (it had a early version of an air brake on the top of it)
7:20 This odd looking craft looks like it flew quite well but I wonder how many people could have mistaken it for a flying saucer when viewed from the ground?
Back when we couldn't make computer simulations, and only the largest firms could afford wind tunnels...when, for the vast majority of aeronautical visionaries, the only option for testing out a new concept was to make one and see if it worked. We were still figuring out what aerodynamics really were and how they worked. A different era....
Only a few of these intrepid inventors missed the memo on basic aerodynamics. In the work of the rest of them we see hints of the future like the canard wing; a canard wing joined to a main mono wing spar; a very primitive delta wing (which they called a 'flying wing). Yes there were duds but the majority of these early attempts show just how versatile and variable are the basics of aerodynamic structures. A few letter exchanges with young Mr Sarkorsky would have sorted out the 'Sky Car's' basic problem - weight and the absence of large enough rotor blades. Good on them. Many well intentioned men died so that you and I can ride in a metal tube at 38K feet; and think we are hard done by. Cheers and chocks away! BH
How about the ducted fan aircraft,and the ground effect types of the 1980's,which were extremely successful! What failed in one era,were successful in another,as the technology caught up to the ideas!! Those inventors did not die in vain,seeds were planted,and gave birth to new(?) Technology! Amazing,when you think that today's stealth planes were infants at one time!! Thanks for the information 👍!
Arup S-2 (#5) was the origin of the V-173 "flapjack", and the German wartime Sack AS-6. After the war, Avro Canada and the USAF built the Avrocar as the VTOL half of a supersonic discoid fighter, more like the Arup or the modern Rowe "UFO" from Aus. The USAF gave up on it (not because it wasn't working) and left Avro to try to sell it as a "air jeep" which it's still doubtful if the lift-engine could ever do.. At the same time, the USSR tried the little Sukhanov discoid gliders that did well. Trying to work it into a STOL supersonic fighter, they dropped it when the USAF dropped theirs. The video didn't mention the Nemeth "parachute plane" of the '30s, which was also an aeronautical success like the Arup, but similarly ignored by the army and everyone else.
Some remarkable machines shown here. Notice that the ones which worked had some serious maths, research and engineering done to work out their viability. The ones that didn't work were just some hare-brained schemes of dreamers that said to themselves "I wonder if it would be a good idea...". You can't beat proper engineering.
Like the guy who had himself cabled by the neck to a bicycle that was supposed to fly with the thrust of a rocket which had previously been proven to explode and spread flaming pieces of itself? That was some top "Hey y'all watch this" design philosophy.
@@musicpuddle6137 I understand what you're saying, but if the dream needs to become a physical object, there must be some design applied, some math worked out, to ensure it will perform.
These people were so right in so many ways - yes there were a few "silly" ideas, but take the plane at 7:34 - it actually had the turned up ends of the wings to increase lift, something that has only been resurrected in the past couple of decades!
The early part of the last century, especially the 1930's, was a great time to be a flyer. Very little government to get in the way of inventing. Yes, there were a lot of injuries and even deaths...but you never know what's going to come out of that.
As a very long time pilot who has flown what are now considered somewhat sketchy aircraft, I TRULY appreciate the sacrifices of those who came before me. There is little doubt they saved my life more than once.
The first one is called an "ultralight" aircraft, and it flies now. The second one also flies now - using what is called a canard to put a small wing in front. The flying barrel is now called 'vectored thrust'. And the flying wing flies now as the B1/B2 bombers... and at supersonic speeds. The aerobike also has flown.
@@jimmydcap Yeah, that was a crime against aviation. but mix it with the ultralight design seen at the start? mmmm got you something to really work with there.
You have to admire the people behind these projects considering the huge amount of time energy and money that was required to try to build their dreams. With just a couple of exceptions all of the ideas shown are fairly practical, failing mainly because the materials were wrong or the engine was not powerful enough.
A few of the gentlemen were obviously just having a laugh (like the last one) but generally those early aeroplanes were not ridiculous, they were simply pushing the envelope.
My favourite element of the rocketcycle was the man igniting the rocket by chasing it with a box of matches. You can see him striking the matches and trying to light the fuse.
Interesting History Of Flying Machines. BARREL PLANE, Should Be Given Credit To The Theory Of The JET ENGINE PLANE. Barrel With Propeller Inside Is Similar To Jet Engine, As Jet Engine Has Many Turbine Blades. Similar To Propellers. Man Is Always Thinking & Engineering. Godspeed Your Journeys. Sincerely Mr. T.
Aircraft review: 1. A functional ultralight that, as demonstrated, was "roadworthy". This could very well be considered the first flying car. 2. A single canard fore-plane and a fuselage that acted as a vertical stabilizer. Not a bad idea, but I would have went with a pusher prop. The canard fore-plane looked like it made getting off the ground easier as it would lift the nose instead of pushing the tail down. 3. No, just...no. 4. This design was basically a primitive jet engine and included thrust-vectoring. Obviously under-powered. 5. Fuselege/wing blending and a design that resembled the US' "flying pancake" fighter design from WW2. 6. This looks like the design is trying to implement the Bournoulli effect in that the airflow over a spinning object creates lift. This is probably how the "flying tic-tac" that US Navy pilots have encountered flies. I'm sure for this design to have worked, those drums would have to spin at hundreds of rpms. 7. Interesting design. I've seen aircraft concepts in the last few decades with "conjoined biplane wings". 8. Interesting spherical wing. It works, but would it help with a plane's efficiency and maneuverability? 9. A flying wing with a canard fore-plane. 10. A functional "ornithopter." Its too bad they didn't try a full scale piloted model. WW2 might have interfered with that. 11. Don't get the flapping wings on this one, but is the concept a plane with an autopilot? 12. Why? It looks like these guys tried to reinvent the wheel. 13, What is with the giant vertical stabilizer? 14. Human powered ornithopter. Problems: a. Wings are too heavy, b. Wings are too small, c. Man's arms aren't strong enough. 15. Sky Car - Interesting bouncing machine. 16. No, no, no. Wings are too small, pilot is too fat, rocket is too small. This looks like a Three Stooges skit.
5) The Arup S-2 was the direct influence of the Vought V-173. Charles Zimmerman worked for NACA in the '30s, was on the team that saw the Arup put on an amazing performance. Only after that did he adopt the very-low aspect-ratio planform as the starting point of his VTOL tail-sitter experiments. Without the Vought plane's exaggerated wing-tip props, the Arup did everything the Vought did, and was sleek and quick on little power, with astounding climb rate, super-STOL and stall-spin proof.
8 was the Nemeth, known as "praachute plane" for its steep descent and near-zero landing roll. Faster than the Alliance Argo biplane which the fuselage came from, astounding climb rate, stall-spin proof. See also the Farman 1020 which was similar., also faster than the monoplane it was built from. The USAAC was STUPID, for not investigating it or the Arup especially. Aeronautical science in general is also stupid for ignoring them. They were notably better than "normal" planes in pretty much all criteria.
@@JFrazer4303 "...astounding climb rate, stall-spin proof." Right there are some good selling points. What do you think of #6? I was astounded when I saw this. Did it ever try to fly? I've seen videos on the lifting effect these spinning drums were obviously designed to achieve with a guy in his garage using a leaf blower to keep an apple spinning in mid-air. I have a very distinct feeling that NACA, NASA and Darpa have done experiments with this and I have a distinct feeling that the "flying tic-tac UFO" that had been in the news over the last year or so is a drone using this same lifting effect.
2. It was built with parts that were laying around their shop at the time, it was meant to test the canard layout. They were better known for their race planes of the late 20s/early 30s. .
The title is a bit misleading. There are a few funny useless contraptions, but the rest are great feats of early engineering. A lot of what you see is incorporated in modern planes, or still researched today!
Mildly proud as a Connecticut native that we have one of the oddest oddities - bird man! Flapping about in his backyard and jumping off bridges. Couldn't be more proud.
One or two of these clearly were the forebears of some modern aeroplanes, e.g. the canard layout, and the flex-wing microlight. Many of them made a passable attempt at not only taking off, but also landing in a controlled way. As for fat man on his bicycle, he was the forebear of the FOMIL (fat old man in lycra). He certainly flew by the seat of his pants!😊
That Sky Car was something else... must have been the inspiration for the Lowrider, also loved how the last guy on the rocket powered bicycle had 1 of his assistants running along behind him trying to light a match but at least he had the forethought to have another assistant follow with a bucket of water, toooo funny
At least some of the people were able to get off the ground successfully. We probably wouldn't have the technology we have today without people like this daring to experiment and trying their best to make things work. Many other people weren't so lucky in their attempts and many died trying.
Men had balls in those days. Imagine flying an experimental aircraft carrying a full tank of gas, with no protective equipment, while wearing nothing but a tweed suit. Needless to say, many of these men didn't die in old age.
![The Giant Airliner With Cabins In Its Wings | Junkers G38 [Aircraft Overview #19]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5uFNOtsucKE/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Giant Airliner With Cabins In Its Wings | Junkers G38 [Aircraft Overview #19]](/img/tr.png)
I smiled through these clips simply because I saw the earnest desire of man for flight and the courage in which was displayed by their steadfastness. They were indeed pioneers and worthy of respect and appreciation. Thanks, fellas!
Italian engineers and Rutan Rules!!!
That Tail First plane was very interesting. It flew very well IMHO.
Some of those, like the ones at 11:00 and 14:50, were comic shorts in newsreels. They were made comic relief..and were not real flying attempts.
I wouldn't say these are hilarious. These guys were pioneers. Even if some of them "failed", they proved what could or could not be done, and it was back to the drawing board. You never know til you try. It's because of people like this, that within 69 years (1900-1969), we went from the horse and buggy to the moon. Pretty remarkable.
*@Jamie Livingston.* I agree 1000%. Great respect to each one of them. The last one should have worked on his diet first. 😉 But at least his friends had bucket of water ready...just in case.
Agreed. As a former ultralight flight instructor, I was amazed to see that early aircraft that looked very similar to an MXL2 Sport Quicksilver Ultralight I flew in the 1990s.
I’m sorry. The dude with the wings on his back and the fat guy on the bike was pretty funny.
@@daleeasterwood2683 I know. The bucket of water was just too much. Not to mention the guy jumping off the rock.
The Sky Car had me rolling on the floor along with birdmsn and bicycle guy. There were some pretty neat ones that did fly maybe a bit strange on design but they did fly. Some were just not thought out well. Like when we were kids and jumped from a height with cardboard wings LOL
3:21 The Flying Barrel might be the most perfect flying machine of its time. Considering when that was built, how well it flew, and how similar it was in structure to later jet engines....that guy was thinking!
And... gasp!... doing math!
Yes, it was a huge ducted fan, something that is the basis for many jet aircraft today.
The only one problem I can see is that if the engine loses power, the aircraft also loses most of its steering (no thrust over the tail).
Just make the rudder and elevator extend out past the cowl, and it looks like a solid design! :3
Looked like a gee bee
@@jamesgizasson well air is still flowing though te duct, so there is still control. It will be less because the rudders are designed to get the strong flow of the running engine, but still sufficient.
The world needs more of these guys
While some of these early ideas were kinda off the wall, but when you look at the tech of the time they were quite inventive. And if you look at the time line from 1910 to 1960 it is rather amazing that early examples of trying to fly and in 50 years there were jet aircraft and rockets going into space, it's quite amazing when you think about it.
The flying car. What effort & the inventor finished, stepped aside for some poor sap to sit in it.
Agreed. As a former ultralight flight instructor, I was amazed to see that early aircraft that looked very similar to a Quicksilver Ultralight I flew in the 1990s.
ua-cam.com/video/b4gSy4byV-8/v-deo.html
When my dad was 14, Lindbergh flew the Atlantic. When I was 14, Apollo 11 landed on the moon.
Amazing yes, but the real amazement is the true "fly-ability by all these "odd" shapes. The shapes are still valid in today's aircraft, like AWACS, helicopters, VTOL, and the small drone that flew on Mars.
Amen
Flying barrel is absolutely amazing. Nothing is funny about this, these guys were nothing short of pioneers, geniuses, and how much I love aviation, you could even say they're my heros.. if it won't for these guys we wouldn't be where we are today
Flying Barrel, was that the butcher on the bike at the end?
Love this... thank goodness for the dreamers, inventors, adventurists, and explorers
Love this…I will.!!
I like how the film was called "Aeronautical Oddities" and the very first one is basically a common modern Ultralight. It shows how the world of flight has changed over the years.
oh yeah, and the later pedal-powered ultralight? it just needed a real propellor and not that affront to aviation it tried using for propulsion. OOhhh...... actually..... since it's made of bike parts.... use a modified wheel with a dozen propellor blades instead of spokes. the ring around the outside will act as a safety feature too.
How do so many intelligent people not understand...
ITS A TITLE TO GET CLICKS!
@@mandelorean6243*It’s
Intelligent people indeed 😂
@@mandelorean6243the title is the literal title of video from the 1940s. Did you not see the title card in the beginning? They weren't looking for "clicks" in the 1930s although it was supposed to be light hearted entertainment for trainees. And these were odd compared to the state of the art at the time.
You dont think that had more to do with the fact that he was driving it around on the ground when a folded wing and then reconfigured it to aircraft configuration? If that a normal feature of ultralight planes today?
You say "hilarious", but many of these concepts are still undergoing study, showing that the people who created these planes were serious thinkers, ahead of the technology of their time.
One aircraft reminds me of the Northrup flying wing, and it flew!
The first one looks just like a modern micro light.
@@dogwalker666 Perhaps more like post-ww2 variable-swing wings... or the earlier folding-wing carrier planes.
@@jmi5969 indeed.
The plane with the spinning drums did fly. Later a plane was developed with smaller spinning drums added to the leading edge of the wings. The flat planes were made several times and the idea led to the development of the twin-engine flying pancake by Vought. The only designs here that lead nowhere were ones like the ornithopter and whatever the grey goose was supposed to be. Strangely a large ornithopter design was tested in France but WWII ended it. A few years ago some guy built an ultralight version. It did get off the ground but it quickly flopped. The Sky car would have flown but 1,000lbs of lift isn't enough to get 1,500lbs of car into the air. If it did make it up, I want to know how he would have controlled it? If it wasn't for the pesky FAA this kind of tomfoolery would still be going on.
1 - Almost identical to a modern "ultralight"
2 - Canard wing aircraft - design still in use today
3 - Errr, no
4 - "Flying barrel" is a ducted fan engine - highly efficient - still used today
5 - Flying wing still used today (see B-2 and B-21 bombers)
6 - Errr, no
7 - Nothing revolutionary, just oddly-shaped biplane
8 - Nothing revolutionary, just oddly-shaped high-winged monoplane
9 - Variation on flying wing design (also see B-2 and B-21 bombers)
10 - Flapping wing toy birds have been around for MANY years
11 - Early mechanical auto-pilot
12 - Errr, no
13 - Alternate control surfaces - They work, but aren't as efficient or practical
14 - Errr, no
15 - Errr, no - but he DID invent the washing machine agitator
16 - Errr, no - but he DID invent the pork roast
Number 9 looks like a souped up AWAC.
Number six was based around the magnus effect which actually does create lift.
@@Demonslayer20111 Yeah, 6 made me go... hunh???? how is that supposed to work? I'd love to see more.
7's wing shape is REALLY weird when you look carefully, I'd actually call it a tri-plane since it has TWO upper wing surfaces. but... yeah.. other than the unusual wing configuration, nothing really special. It has a rear mounted prop, but that's just a standard prop engine facing back. although... I think I've heard of it, and the idea was improved flight stability. But IIRC this test craft only worked at relatively low speed as the gaps between wings made massive turbulence at higher speeds.
9 is interesting since the vertical stabilizers are on the winglets, and it has no centrally mounted stabilizer.
12 is basically a pedal powered ultra-light... and people have those today.... but with REAL propellors.... not that crime against aviation.
13's high vertical stabilizer is seen in some modern designs actually.... the weird flaps not so much.
15 if it didn't bounce up and down it might have worked..... O it'd also need to have a fixed angle on the wind vanes. it looks like they were flattening into a closed position. that doesn't... oh wait.. that was the point.... this guy is trying to make lift by having a single wing flap. the bouncing is the attempt at flapping. But it can't flap fast enough to get lift. Hmm... weird idea..... weird as hell.... hmm.. if the prototype was half the weight.... maybe....
Yes, pork roast indeed 🤣
6th one . brilliant idea though not workable back then
. rotating rolls instead of wings? tech wasnt light enough and motors not fast enough but this is the magnus effect principle and it does actually work (not back then)
example : RC KFC bucket aeroplane (magnus effect) ua-cam.com/video/K6geOms33Dk/v-deo.html
The mechanical drive system for the spinning-umbrella sky car is an engineering feat in and of itself - it's amazing that it didn't shake itself apart within a few seconds.
And, of course, they picked the fat man to ride the flying rocket-cycle
Sky car: "Turbulence? Where we're going we don't need turbulence!" 😂
If that sky car copter had managed to get off the ground that inventor would have learned the hard (and dizzying) reason why helicopters needed tail rotors.
@@patricknesbitt4003 then he had proceeded to make one with two counter-rotating umbrellas... Without synchronizing the reciprocating motion of both 🤕
It regularly flew hundreds of miles on tests but on filming day,the rocket bike went camera-shy.
I thought the same thing about the fat man riding the rocket-cycle. It looked like he didn't know how to ride a bicycle.
The design and craftsmanship that went into these creations is amazing. Without these visionaries we would not have the advancements of today. I applaud their skill, vision and courage. Truly not “hilarious” but rather inspirational. Please let your “Title” reflect their brilliance.
The "self-flying plane" is so incredible. it's amazing that's still today we are designing effective autopilots and this was one of the pioneers!
He went a bit far demonstrating it.
I wouldn't he surprised to learn he fell off if he tried that again
It reminds me of the old windvane as autopilots for sailboats, that's probably where they got the idea.
@@justindunlap1235 those windvane autopilots are still going strong!
My god, I love these people. And we NEED people like this.
I know we're meant to point & laugh but some of those aircraft would make excellent home build projects.
Like the first one. With modern materials that'd make a splendid microlight kit. With that rotating wing for storage / transport what's not to like?
There were quite a few that seemed to be excellent flyers!
That was my thought, that it was very like modern ultralights. The tiny casters made me worried about them digging into soft surfaces; I would use about three or four times that wheel diameter.
Wow, it's wonderful to see these videos that were preserved from this period in aviation history! I thought they would be just the usual bunch of hopeless failures such as I've seen since I watched "Captain Kangaroo," but I've never seen some of these, and not only did they actually fly, they show the basic ideas of technologies which have since been used in advanced research and practical applications! This is great!
I can't say that I have seen a more elegant airframe design as the first aircraft. He drives the craft to the field, rotates the wing around the central spindle, attaches a couple of wires (control cables or stays? I am unsure) and off into the air he goes, and the craft appears to be completely stable. I don't even see any obvious control surfaces!
It looks a lot like a modern ultralight with a swing wing.
That one totally surprised me. When he came driving on the road I thought "how on earth is that supposed to fly?" Then, when he turned the wing I thought "oh! but still, how is he going to get it off the ground and safely back?" He sure shot down my doubts.
I was equally impressed. Slinging the fuselage below the wing makes the machine inherently stable, and 30 years later that tail design get used on the Liberator and Lancaster. Make it in modern technology and it could almost be a powered hang-glider.
I don't remember what number or name it had, but there was an X plane (experimental) by NASA or the FAA that had a swing wing like that that was, potentially at least, supersonic.
@@HeriEystberg same here....I expected an instant crash...but he left me in the dust with my mouth hanging open....it was a pretty elegant flyer too...
Ah man. I wish this guy at 11:00 was around to experience wingsuits today. Imagine seeing him getting his mind totally blown; flying around the mountains like an eagle.
I wouldn't call it flying like an eagle if I fell down at 60mph...
@carey ⚘️ nice thought
@@stejer211 There are powered wingsuits you know.
yes thats whyim saying
That "barrel airplane" at 3:30 is really a ducted fan jet, often seen in R/C models of actual jets these days, thought true jet engines can be purchased (the engines are quite expensive for models!). From the side in flight it looked almost like the GeeBee Racers that came later!
well.. modern jet engines in real jets use the ducting principle as well. That fan blade on the front spins at RPM that would have blown the mind of the guy who made the barrel plane, but it's the same fundamental idea.
Very cool and innovative experimental aircraft. Early canards, ducted fan engine, flying pancakes, joined wing, rotating cylinders, and some just plain goofy ideas. So cool to see all these dudes dressed up in suits to show off and demonstrate their creations. The rocket bicycle was the best. Thanks for sharing.
When I look at this footage and where we are today, I appreciate these pioneers more every time. It's often good to appreciate where we came from.
I like the way the first pilot drives his plane over to the testing field, like he's out for a Sunday morning jaunt...and then proceeds to flip the wing around and take off. Some of these early ideas look crazy, but they actually worked. Even the tail-first plane--like a backwards Ascender, if that makes any sense--flew.
We owe a lot to these guys making the best of the technology available to them. People like this have made commercial aviation what it is today; safe and reliable.
Wow. What brave people. To take the risks that they took with no, or next to no safe guards is amazing. I do wish we could hear what they were saying about their crafts.
I like how so many of the comments are applauding them for trying something new instead of making fun - restores faith in humanity a little!
Having known what Aviation is and what it takes to design an airplane, I say these designs are no jokes and not hilarious. They are pure marvels and nothing less.
The first "swing wing" is actually very impressive, as is the second "Rutan - grandaddy" .... all these people were pioneers working within the tech limitations of the day, and breaking new ground.
Plus, it was tough to get a machine off the ground with the added weight of the huge steel balls they carried !!!
The Rutan is exactly what it made me think of. They teased him calling it a plane with the tail in the back but they forgot that the Wright brother's first plane was a canard design. Amazingly the canard idea was being developed by almost all the major powers during WWII. The US, UK, Germany, Italy, and Japan all gave it a try. Britain even tried to develop a canard heavy bomber. It just wasn't the right design for a military aircraft. Although some will say the SAAB Gripen, and the Eurofighter Typhoon are canard aircraft but they are actually delta canards and not a pure canard aircraft.
"steel balls?" I think those guys had to be hauling TITANIUM BALLS - SIR!
@@Jonathan.D My favourite canard aircraft will always be the Kyushu J7W Shinden.
@@stainlesssteelfox1 It's a cool one. There was a video about it recently. Much like the US canard aircraft they tried to innovate too much too soon. That was one of the factors that kept it from being finished. It's sad that they didn't get it to work perfectly. It would be cool if someone was able to finish it and see how it would have done against the US or the British canard aircraft.
You forgot that the first aircraft to fly was a canard.
As a young kid in the 70s, my dad & I went to see a movie called 'Gizmo'. The whole thing was about early flying contraptions. We enjoyed it!
To say these inventors were ahead of their time is a vast understatement.
Straight away you can tell which are engineers and which are clueless though, can't you? Then inbetween you have the Caproni ducted fan idea which is fine in principle, but the a/c is incapable of carrying any payload in it's prototype form. Has been likened to a Tiger Moth that's been dropped down a well..
ALL inventors are ahead of their time. Thats why they are called inventors.
As I see it, there are no inventors, just discoverers. Why? because anything that is possible to do has been poosible to do since day one.
All someone had to do was to discover how to do it.
@@HOOOLD_ON How many inventors invented things that were already invented before they invented something that wasn't? The ones who give up are the ones who become other things.
@@thephilpott2194 you mean the flying barrel? just have two barrels and a payload area between the barrels. :D Then upgrade to jet engines.... :p
I think "hilarious" is the wrong word to use for this video. These men were geniuses considering how fresh the concept of Aviation was when this video was compiled.
It's interesting the number of those early designs that have been reworked over the years into successful aircraft
I love how the early inventors tested these wacky aircraft in snazzy suits "It might be death by hilariously unstable flying machine, but I shall die dressed as a gentleman"
At Dec. 17, 1903 the Wright brothers made their first 'heavier than air' flight at 12 secs and 180 feet.
At that time my granddad was 5 years old, and today we are talking about commercial space tourism?
I cant really believe it, but it is what it is.
Excellent
My grandfather was 4.
And the first flight of the SR-71 was 61 years later. That still astounds me!
The ducted fan looked so stable. However, the designer of the windmill didnt seem to understand the basic principles of flight or aircraft design, but it did look entertaining.👍
The windmill contraption made no aeronautical sense to me. There were no lift devices or lift generating surfaces. That was actually a paddlewheel craft. Just not an aircraft. Paddlewheel is very low efficiency propulsion method. It only and barely works for marine propulsion because of water 's high density. Water is exactly 1000 X denser and heavier then air. Air is 20% Oxygen , 70 nitrogen , and rest is CO2 and trace atmospheric gases.
We already have windmill aircraft. They are called helicopters. As a helicopter is windmill laying sideways on the ground.
The ducted fan was actually a serious experimental plane developed by the Italians to test the concept.
The Stipa-Caproni was a demonstrator of the propulsor, which was being suggested for Zeppelins and huge all-wing transports where it could be buried in the wing.
It flew well, as it was, and proved the propulsor worked.
Or gravity
It looked like it could’ve come from a star wars movie
1.35: "Oddest airplane flies tail-first." The arrangement is called "canard". Fun fact: The Wright Flyer was a canard.
and it was pusher prop!
Short clips from several of these films appeared at the start of "Those Magnificent men in Their Flying Machines" - its good to see the full versions here. Not all those crates were as crazy as they may seem - the 'canard' (tail first) layout was used on several successful pre WW1 machines. Likewise the one 'flying wing' resembles another successful Edwardian design; the first machine is almost a proto - ultralight and the 'freak' stubby fuselage delta wing had several experimental successors including one, I think, from Nazi Germany. Fortunately for the pilot the Sky Car didn't get off the floor - it had no horizontal or vertical stabilsers, or indeed apparent rudder! Early aircraft are fascinating - so many ideas to be tried out.
The first Wright Flyer had the elevator in the front.
I vividly remember that movie as a child.
"Thooossse magnificent men in their flying machines.
They go uppity up up, and go downdidy down down...."
@@gregmead2967 slide whistle intensifies
They were a lot better than I expected. I wish the headline wasn't listing them as "hilarious". Some were quite good ideas and pretty darned stable.
The flying barrel, was brilliant. He didn’t know it, but he created the first ducted fan engine nacelle. Now you see them on passenger jets. The flying wing is NOW the B2 bomber. I wish that they could see the advancements that they inspired now.
At least the guy trying to popularize it during WW II (Northrop) got to see the B2 project before he died.
This popped up just after Northrop revealed the B21 (December 2022). Flying wing at 4:25 had same basis aerodynamics?
I wish every single one of these inventors could have experienced flight in a modern aerobatic aircraft. I can just imagine their smiles.
the guy who designed the barrel plane was a legit professional in the aeronautics industry back in his day. Hmm I wonder if he lived long enough to see the ducted fan idea get turned into jet engines?
A miracle the Sky Car stayed together, that was a violent design. And the rocket bike; see the guy light it with a match? And the rider outweighed all three of his helpers combined. Gotta love it.
Pretty sure Rocket Bike was a comedy sketch in the Laurel & Hardy vein. As that, quite successful...
14:44 Rule #1 in Aviation:
Always use the heaviest guy you can find as the test pilot for the best possible stability.
Now now we’re in the modern era he was well nourished don’t wanna hurt no feelings
😂 true, he wouldn’t be put out by that comment, but he was ‘put out’ 🙄
And if it's based on a bike, find a person who can't ride one to pilot it.
🤣🤣🤣
Goofy but this people were not clowns, they were pioneers and the collective knowledge gain from experiences is what we have now on modern aircrafts.
The video felt like I was watching the trailer of Magnificent Men and Their Flying Machines, hilarious, but all credit to these pioneers and dreamers that we fly safe and go to war confident. Thank you for this upload. 👍
Leading off with a perfectly functional convertible ultralight, not even remotely ridiculous! Pretty slick actually.
I'm actually amazed at how many of these I've already seen clips of, but how much these extended clips explained more clearly, despite the lack of audio. The "helicopter" sky car, for example: I always thought that was a solid metal umbrella, kind of like a giant cymbal. I never knew it was vaned to try and let air pass downwards through it. And I think in all of the other videos I've seen of the "ornithopter" flying off the bridge, I always assumed that it was either unmanned, or that the human was on top of the wing. I never before realized that the guy could have drowned right there if he couldn't get himself untangled fast enough!
You bought the DVD muhahaha, it's old content ...
Your Disk Players are a museum too now.
@@lucasRem-ku6eb Huh? What DVD? I've seen most of these clips in abbreviated fashion in documentaries and museums over the years. Hence why I only ever saw shorter versions. I really appreciated the opportunity to see longer video segments with more context.
Those are the shoulders and the efforts that we stood on as we advanced! Bold thinkers and rather brave folks.
Like Wilber said to Orville after many earlier failed attempts “ Orville, don’t you think this is a lot of trouble to go through to get a date with a bunch of flight
attendants ? “
What a brave men!! Once in my childhood there was a village fool that made wings and tried flying from high building. After crashing he said, With fools stuff you hurt yourself.
The last scene killed me! It took a lot of balls & serious skills to fly some of those contraptions.
Did you note the presence of airfield fire fighting equipment? That was the kid running alongside with a bucket of water.
The guy running along at the back trying to strike a match to light the fuse!!! What a gag for Harold Lloyd!! Wow..;
Fatty Arbuckle had another career as a cyclist wannabee pilot. That was hilarious
4:11 The "Spindle plane" is using the Magnus effect, so it's more like a short take-off and landing (STOL) aircraft. Hal DeBolt designed a radio-controlled model using the principle in the 1990s for "Model Air News."
5:00 I've often wondered about using the Magnus Effect in such a manner. It doesn't appear that they were able to achieve a high enough rpm to generate any significant lift however. Combine the weight of the materials and high weight to power ratios of the engines of that period, and there was really no plausible way for it to actually work. But I'd love to see what that inventor/engineer could have come up with using today's technology.
There are several videos on youtube of R/C airplanes flying using the magnus effect.
@@utjason8 thank you! I'll definitely check those out!
@@utjason8 Peter stripol had a magnus effect video that I never watched but now may. He’s built some electric ultralights and does some weird fun aviation stuff.
Buenísimo! Y de traje y corbata los aviadores...la música excelente!!❤🎉😊me.rei mucho con algunos intentos😂
Let's take a minute to honor those brave men willing to take life by the tail and risking so much.
Willing to go for it all and fly those machines for it's like the flying the SR 71 for the first time as death was just one mastake away
We seem to be taking these men, their contribution and their sacrifice for granted, or ignore them altogether. They deserve a lot more credit.
I agree with you both. Amazing feats of engineering and courage for such a fledgling science.
I agree. And they're always wearing their Sunday best.
Imagine face planting off of a rock or a bridge. (The guy with the heavy bird outline design.)
THE HUMAN RACE IS A FUNNY THING. SINCE MANKIND FIRST WALKED THE EARTH, IT'S TRIED TO MAKE LIKE A BIRD. NOW IT HAS THE BRAINS OF ONE.
Much love & appreciation to all these inventors who dared to make their flying visions a reality! Bravo👏🎉
Nice to see the engineers/pilots nicely dressed in coat and tie. Different era, for sure. And oddly, most fly successfully.
I built a total of 9 experimental aircraft, but admittedly, designed and proven by others. Noticed that a few are still flying. All of mine were more traditionally designed aircraft, 7 single seaters, two were two-seaters.
the pilots nicely dressed in coat and tie were like that so they would look good at funeral
@@johnwaite3879 I "CAN" picture a wife saying, "Oh, I wish Tom would quit fooling around with that infernal flying machine thing out in the barn, and get a REAL job!"
6:55, that airplane with a disc wing flew surprisingly well. I didn’t expect it to get more than 10 foot off the ground.
It looked like the first ever AWACS!!
“It is far better to have tried and failed than to have never tried at all.”
The first one is familiar to me, due to growing up around ultralight aircraft. This is essentially the same design used in modern ultralight aircraft.
The flying wing and tailless aircraft look like they could be the grandfathers of the B-2 bomber.
Why did they put a 300-pound dude on the rocket bike??? That pretty much guaranteed a failure.
That Windmill plane is definitely "heavier than air." That "ducted fan" beer barrel plane is a solid performer! Hey that "flying wing" plane looks like "The Flying Flapjack" of World War II. A pair of counter-rotating spindles per side!? Can that "halo wing" plane pick up any radio signals? That round wing plane is another successful "flying flapjack." Hey Jack Northrop, that "no-tail" plane with vertical winglets looks awfully familiar. Uh-oh, the non-flying bicycle "eggbeater" looks like a paddle steamer ship on land! That French "tall tail" plane looks very maneuverable. Ah yes, the "bird man" with too little wing area and way too much tail. That "Sky Car" would be a great clothes washer/dryer, since it too is "heavier than air." Robert Goddard would be ROFLHAO at that "rocket bomb" device!
Shhh....you're going to get Beryl upset again by criticizing those cutting edge aircraft.
Don't forget that "Tail First" Aircraft. It nearly perfected the forward Canard principle!
The ducted fan design is the basis for the MiG 15 (NATO code name Fagot) and MiG 17 (NATO code name Fresco)
The flying wing was actually designed by a podiatrist in South Bend, Indiana and the three built had successful careers as flying billboards in Indianapolis.
The Arup S-2 from Indiana was remarkably successful as a flying machine. Sleek and quick on little power, astounding climb rate and 18 kts landing speed. Stall-spin proof.
It flew for NACA in the '30s and Charles Zimmerman was on the NACA team that saw it. After that we used the planform for the V-173, which did not need the situation with the wing-tip props spinning outward.
NACA tunnel tests showed that the V-173 did not gain anything with that arrangement versus normal 80 hp props spinning the other way. The Arup planes did everything the Vought did, much simpler.
This is actually sad to watch. This was an era when the average person wasn't afraid to take a chance, go out to their garage and build something that could either be ridiculous or fabulous. They were truly revolutionary and brave to put their lives in jeopardy flying something they built with their own hands. The average person today just wants to sit in their house and play video games.
Word
3:25 Amazing, great find. Probably the first jet ever created. Flies like a champion, damn that thing is smooth. Genius.
I like that one too, but you can't really call it a jet shirley.
You obviously don't know what a jet engine is.
@@Rob-fc9wg Considering I used to be a rework finish grinder on jet engine parts for precision cast parts I'd say it's you who doesn't know what a jet engine is. LOL, I was the last person to work on jet engine moving parts before we shipped them out to customers such as Boeing and U.S. government.
@@jumpmaninspired
Where is the jet engine on this plane?
Well Mr Jet Engine Finish Grinder, it seems you don't know a piston engine from a jet engine!
Fantastic, I am so impressed by these forward thinking genius minds, incredible, 🙏👍👍👍👍from France 🇫🇷
The guy with the strap on wings who jumps off the bridge is probably my favourite of all these.
Faceplant!
so....the flying wing was a thing before Hitler tried the Horton HO-229?
also if you pay close mind some of these feature are actually on modern craft an example being the tail less plain (it had a tricycle landing gear) or the thingy at 10:53 (it had a early version of an air brake on the top of it)
Still just as fun as the first time I saw this film 40 years ago!
Just realized i played the whole video and just listened to the music instead of watching any of it. Great recording.
7:20 This odd looking craft looks like it flew quite well but I wonder how many people could have mistaken it for a flying saucer when viewed from the ground?
Back when we couldn't make computer simulations, and only the largest firms could afford wind tunnels...when, for the vast majority of aeronautical visionaries, the only option for testing out a new concept was to make one and see if it worked. We were still figuring out what aerodynamics really were and how they worked.
A different era....
पश्चिमी देशों में तकनीकी को विकसित करने के लिए बहुत मेहनत और कुर्बानी दी गई
Only a few of these intrepid inventors missed the memo on basic aerodynamics. In the work of the rest of them we see hints of the future like the canard wing; a canard wing joined to a main mono wing spar; a very primitive delta wing (which they called a 'flying wing). Yes there were duds but the majority of these early attempts show just how versatile and variable are the basics of aerodynamic structures. A few letter exchanges with young Mr Sarkorsky would have sorted out the 'Sky Car's' basic problem - weight and the absence of large enough rotor blades. Good on them. Many well intentioned men died so that you and I can ride in a metal tube at 38K feet; and think we are hard done by. Cheers and chocks away! BH
Now we know where the word "airfield" comes from...
And many thanks for showing us these ideas...
I didn't realize that the "Canard" configuration was used back while aviation was still being born. COOL!
The Wright Flyer, the first heavier-than-air plane to fly successfully, was a canard.
@@wittwittwer1043 Yes. A dynamically unstable one.
Rocket Wolf "Ent"
Focke Wulf!
Ever looked hard at the Wright Flyer?
Not only were some of these contraptions creative but the men flying them were some real risk takers.
Some of those actually showed promise, and actually predicted operational and experimental aircraft of the 50's and 60's.
Yes, that barrel plane resembled a jet engine.
How about the ducted fan aircraft,and the ground effect types of the 1980's,which were extremely successful! What failed in one era,were successful in another,as the technology caught up to the ideas!! Those inventors did not die in vain,seeds were planted,and gave birth to new(?) Technology! Amazing,when you think that today's stealth planes were infants at one time!! Thanks for the information 👍!
Arup S-2 (#5) was the origin of the V-173 "flapjack", and the German wartime Sack AS-6.
After the war, Avro Canada and the USAF built the Avrocar as the VTOL half of a supersonic discoid fighter, more like the Arup or the modern Rowe "UFO" from Aus. The USAF gave up on it (not because it wasn't working) and left Avro to try to sell it as a "air jeep" which it's still doubtful if the lift-engine could ever do..
At the same time, the USSR tried the little Sukhanov discoid gliders that did well. Trying to work it into a STOL supersonic fighter, they dropped it when the USAF dropped theirs.
The video didn't mention the Nemeth "parachute plane" of the '30s, which was also an aeronautical success like the Arup, but similarly ignored by the army and everyone else.
@@JFrazer4303 Also Grumman "Flying Flapjack"
The canard actually flew well!
Well if at first you don’t succeed try, try and try again.
If it hadn’t been for pioneers like this we would never have got to the moon.😂
Some remarkable machines shown here. Notice that the ones which worked had some serious maths, research and engineering done to work out their viability. The ones that didn't work were just some hare-brained schemes of dreamers that said to themselves "I wonder if it would be a good idea...". You can't beat proper engineering.
And yet sometimes it's the dreamers who come up with truly new ideas, unimpeded as they are by the knowledge that it won't work.
Like the guy who had himself cabled by the neck to a bicycle that was supposed to fly with the thrust of a rocket which had previously been proven to explode and spread flaming pieces of itself?
That was some top "Hey y'all watch this" design philosophy.
@@musicpuddle6137 I understand what you're saying, but if the dream needs to become a physical object, there must be some design applied, some math worked out, to ensure it will perform.
@@timconstable7348 you left out practical testing. :p multiple iterations of testing are needed to verify the mathematical model is correct.
@@marhawkman303 I think that's covered under research...
These people were so right in so many ways - yes there were a few "silly" ideas, but take the plane at 7:34 - it actually had the turned up ends of the wings to increase lift, something that has only been resurrected in the past couple of decades!
The early part of the last century, especially the 1930's, was a great time to be a flyer. Very little government to get in the way of inventing. Yes, there were a lot of injuries and even deaths...but you never know what's going to come out of that.
As a very long time pilot who has flown what are now considered somewhat sketchy aircraft, I TRULY appreciate the sacrifices of those who came before me. There is little doubt they saved my life more than once.
The first one is called an "ultralight" aircraft, and it flies now.
The second one also flies now - using what is called a canard to put a small wing in front.
The flying barrel is now called 'vectored thrust'.
And the flying wing flies now as the B1/B2 bombers... and at supersonic speeds.
The aerobike also has flown.
Very true just not that bike in this video. 🤣
@@jimmydcap Yeah, that was a crime against aviation. but mix it with the ultralight design seen at the start? mmmm got you something to really work with there.
6:50 Glenview, IL near Chicago, now it's all buildings from cornfields since then
You have to admire the people behind these projects considering the huge amount of time energy and money that was required to try to build their dreams. With just a couple of exceptions all of the ideas shown are fairly practical, failing mainly because the materials were wrong or the engine was not powerful enough.
I agree, I give them 10/10 for effort, courage and enthusiasm.
Great men all of them. There were no safety regulations back then. People were so daring.
A few of the gentlemen were obviously just having a laugh (like the last one) but generally those early aeroplanes were not ridiculous, they were simply pushing the envelope.
They’d have stood more of a chance if they hadn’t chosen the big fella the ride the bike 😂
My favourite element of the rocketcycle was the man igniting the rocket by chasing it with a box of matches. You can see him striking the matches and trying to light the fuse.
Interesting History Of Flying Machines. BARREL PLANE, Should Be Given Credit To The Theory Of The JET ENGINE PLANE. Barrel With Propeller Inside Is Similar To Jet Engine, As Jet Engine Has Many Turbine Blades. Similar To Propellers. Man Is Always Thinking & Engineering. Godspeed Your Journeys. Sincerely Mr. T.
Aircraft review:
1. A functional ultralight that, as demonstrated, was "roadworthy". This could very well be considered the first flying car.
2. A single canard fore-plane and a fuselage that acted as a vertical stabilizer. Not a bad idea, but I would have went with a pusher prop. The canard fore-plane looked like it made getting off the ground easier as it would lift the nose instead of pushing the tail down.
3. No, just...no.
4. This design was basically a primitive jet engine and included thrust-vectoring. Obviously under-powered.
5. Fuselege/wing blending and a design that resembled the US' "flying pancake" fighter design from WW2.
6. This looks like the design is trying to implement the Bournoulli effect in that the airflow over a spinning object creates lift. This is probably how the "flying tic-tac" that US Navy pilots have encountered flies. I'm sure for this design to have worked, those drums would have to spin at hundreds of rpms.
7. Interesting design. I've seen aircraft concepts in the last few decades with "conjoined biplane wings".
8. Interesting spherical wing. It works, but would it help with a plane's efficiency and maneuverability?
9. A flying wing with a canard fore-plane.
10. A functional "ornithopter." Its too bad they didn't try a full scale piloted model. WW2 might have interfered with that.
11. Don't get the flapping wings on this one, but is the concept a plane with an autopilot?
12. Why? It looks like these guys tried to reinvent the wheel.
13, What is with the giant vertical stabilizer?
14. Human powered ornithopter. Problems: a. Wings are too heavy, b. Wings are too small, c. Man's arms aren't strong enough.
15. Sky Car - Interesting bouncing machine.
16. No, no, no. Wings are too small, pilot is too fat, rocket is too small. This looks like a Three Stooges skit.
5) The Arup S-2 was the direct influence of the Vought V-173.
Charles Zimmerman worked for NACA in the '30s, was on the team that saw the Arup put on an amazing performance. Only after that did he adopt the very-low aspect-ratio planform as the starting point of his VTOL tail-sitter experiments.
Without the Vought plane's exaggerated wing-tip props, the Arup did everything the Vought did, and was sleek and quick on little power, with astounding climb rate, super-STOL and stall-spin proof.
8 was the Nemeth, known as "praachute plane" for its steep descent and near-zero landing roll.
Faster than the Alliance Argo biplane which the fuselage came from, astounding climb rate, stall-spin proof.
See also the Farman 1020 which was similar., also faster than the monoplane it was built from.
The USAAC was STUPID, for not investigating it or the Arup especially.
Aeronautical science in general is also stupid for ignoring them. They were notably better than "normal" planes in pretty much all criteria.
@@JFrazer4303 Cool! Thanks for the info!
@@JFrazer4303 "...astounding climb rate, stall-spin proof." Right there are some good selling points.
What do you think of #6? I was astounded when I saw this. Did it ever try to fly?
I've seen videos on the lifting effect these spinning drums were obviously designed to achieve with a guy in his garage using a leaf blower to keep an apple spinning in mid-air. I have a very distinct feeling that NACA, NASA and Darpa have done experiments with this and I have a distinct feeling that the "flying tic-tac UFO" that had been in the news over the last year or so is a drone using this same lifting effect.
2. It was built with parts that were laying around their shop at the time, it was meant to test the canard layout. They were better known for their race planes of the late 20s/early 30s. .
12:30 : Rodeo training machine
The title is a bit misleading. There are a few funny useless contraptions, but the rest are great feats of early engineering. A lot of what you see is incorporated in modern planes, or still researched today!
All deserve the best respects❤
To bad the original commentary is lost. Whats with the digital clock thing blocking out the bottom?
The second clip does have audio. . .
ua-cam.com/video/OkmjXSUgcNU/v-deo.html
Love it but my favorite is the Caproni Stipa flying barrel because the inventor understood the principles of Vortex thrust. Thanks
God Bless the folks willing to try something different and following their dreams. :)
Mildly proud as a Connecticut native that we have one of the oddest oddities - bird man! Flapping about in his backyard and jumping off bridges. Couldn't be more proud.
One or two of these clearly were the forebears of some modern aeroplanes, e.g. the canard layout, and the flex-wing microlight. Many of them made a passable attempt at not only taking off, but also landing in a controlled way. As for fat man on his bicycle, he was the forebear of the FOMIL (fat old man in lycra). He certainly flew by the seat of his pants!😊
the test rocket exploded and the flight test rocket exploded...kind of a caution there....
That Sky Car was something else... must have been the inspiration for the Lowrider, also loved how the last guy on the rocket powered bicycle had 1 of his assistants running along behind him trying to light a match but at least he had the forethought to have another assistant follow with a bucket of water, toooo funny
The heaviest man on the bicycle ‘flying machine’ 🤣
They were all daring young men!
I have the same thought 👍
At least some of the people were able to get off the ground successfully. We probably wouldn't have the technology we have today without people like this daring to experiment and trying their best to make things work. Many other people weren't so lucky in their attempts and many died trying.
To me the funny part is that they are wearing suits and ties
The best way to find out is to make a good try!!!
Very innovative indeed 👍
Men had balls in those days. Imagine flying an experimental aircraft carrying a full tank of gas, with no protective equipment, while wearing nothing but a tweed suit. Needless to say, many of these men didn't die in old age.
"There are BOLD pilots, and there are OLD pilots, but there are very few OLD BOLD pilots!"
The FLAPPING ones prove especially moronic. Not sure how in the world they thought those would actually work. 😆