Going Out With A (Big) Bang: Boeing BQ-7 Aphrodite
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 вер 2024
- In this video, we talk about the Boeing BQ-7 Aphrodite and the Consolidated BQ-8, converted Boeing B-17 Flying Fortresses and Consolidated B-24 Liberators intended to serve as guided bombs. We first talk about the European theater mid-World War II and Germany's attempts to construct launch sites for their V1 and V2 rockets. We talk about the grave danger they posed to Britain and how the allies attempted to stop these sites through Operation Crossbow. We talk about how that operation was deemed a failure due to the apparent lack of large enough explosives.
We then look at the intended solutions in the form of the BQ-7 and BQ-8, part of Operation Aphrodite and Operation Anvil, worn-out bombers that would be stripped of just about everything and loaded with Torpex, a British-made explosive. We talk about the radio control systems of these, how finicky they were, and how ineffective they were in the field. We then talk about an infamous use of the BQ-8 that ended in the death of the older brother of then-future President John F. Kennedy. We end by talking about how some German deception may have been instrumental in these two projects existing.
I DID learn something. Being an rc enthusiast I can well see why these things failed massively. Even modern electronics get jumbled, those first tube jobs must've been hugely unreliable. It only takes losing the signal for a second to lose your aircraft over the English Channel, or my local field.
A modern 2.4ghz radio would have made all the difference
American aircraft designations are fun. Some have obvious meanings, others take a little thought, and still others are just downright mysterious. The system that prevailed for nearly forty years started in the late 1920s using a letter or two letters followed by a sequential number. Apparently, any aircraft proposal that received government financing got a designation, even if the proposal got no further than a plywood mockup (the XF-108 Rapier, for example). A for Attack and B for Bombardment are straightforward, as is P if you understand that back almost 100 years ago what we think of as a fighter was thought of as a Pursuit aircraft, thus the whole gamut of classic WWII fighters like the P-38, the P-47, and the P-51. (The Mustang stayed in USAF inventory long enough to be re-designated as the F-51, as did the P-80/F-80 Shooting Star, and P-82/F-82 Twin Mustang.) C is for cargo, obviously, but KC, the destination for aerial tankers, is not unless you know the K stands for kerosine, the chemical foundation of all conventional turbojet fuels.
F means Fighter. Obvious, right? Wrong. During WWII F stood for Photographic reconnaissance, however since P was already taken they used F as in "foto". There were three widely used photo-recon ships in American service in Europe -- the Lockheed F-4 and F5, both derived from the P-38, and the Supermarine Spitfire PR XI. I haven't discovered whether the Spitfire received an F designation. Howard Hughes was nearly killed test-flying his long-range photo-recon ship, the XF-11. Republic's photo-recon design was truly spectacular -- four engines, 400 mph cruise speed, and its own onboard photo-processing lab.
L is for Liason, an undistinguished designation for very hazardous duty aircraft. The most widely used of this type was the Piper L-4 Grasshopper, basically a Piper Cub with an OD paint job. Slow, low, and frequently unarmed, the L-4 was mostly used for artillery spotting. The Germans knew that and took great pains to shoot them down whenever they were able, which was often. L-4s had no guns installed at the factory, but some L-4 pilots rectified that problem. One of these steelballs rigged his Grasshopper with six (count 'em six) M1A1 bazookas. L-4 jockeys often gave rides to general officers wanting a birdseye look-see at the up-front front, and they could even snag message bundles from the ground. No glory. All guts.
O is for Observation. Observation aircraft were purpose-designed to do many of the duties the Liason plane actually did, but they were generally useless. The North American O-47A was one the last of that breed. Though faster than the L-4 it wasn't nearly fast enough to avoid German gunners on the ground, and it was far too big for the job. The L-4 could operate from any sizeable cow pasture, but the O-47A needed a base with a real airstrip. Consequently, they were often based too far behind the lines for timely operations where the artillery shells landed.
U is for Utility, a catchall designation. The most famous U is the U-2, which ought to have been an R if the CIA didn't have a hand in it, though who can say the U-2 doesn't have great utility? R is for Reconnaissance, and SR is for Strategic Reconnaissance unless you know that story about President LBJ getting the letters out of order. T is Trainer, of course. X is for Experimental, and Y is for Prototype. Why? Why not? (This is a true fact.)
So what about Q? All the Qs are remote-controlled aircraft, but I have no idea what Q stands for. Questionably under control might apply. We had more Qs than the BQ-7. Some of the most ambitious WWII Qs originated as Navy projects with non-Q designations like TDR. We have lots of Qs nowadays, at least fourteen in current service.
Q comes from Queen. The first production radio controlled target drones were built by the British Royal Navy in the early 1930's in the shape of the Fairey Queen, a modified Fairy IIIF, followed by the DH 82B Queen Bee based on the Tiger Moth.
When I investigated this topic I was surprised that the USAAF persisted with the idea for so long yet were unwilling to use gliders for the same mission. The Navy did experiment with remote controlled glide bombs though never deployed them. A glider being designed for crude control and needing only a short period of radio control is far more suited to the role.
A-20s weren't bombers. They were attack aircraft - hence the "A" prefix ex: A-20, A-26. Bombers had a "B" prefix ex: B-17, B-24, B-25, B-26.
If you want an idea for a plane to do next, please consider the C-87 Liberator Express. As a cargo conversion of the standard B-24 bomber, the C-87 turned out to be an absolute widowmaker but the stories of the men who had to fly them consist of unglamorous hard work in a pretty thankless part of any military's war effort and yet, without the transport crews and the logistical support they provide, no army can succeed. Flaws and all, the Liberator Express should be better remembered than it is.
interesting to me that the Fritz X was used successfully multiple times, while these were such a failure
IHYLS should follow up this video with another about the Navy's purpose-built kamikaze drone, the Interstate TDR, the drone that actually hit stuff belonging to the enemy.
You made me laugh when it all went off the rails at the end with the rambling. 😄
My ex gf was a night fighter and I’m not exaggerating either that she could have taken out at least 50% of the Allied statistics if not more, once the sun went down she was the perfect attacking force and she was definitely born in the wrong era. I am etching this comment from my resting place here and just wanted to share my experience with you guys. Best wishes and live long and healthy lives. 💙🦋
One really must have complete and sincere respect for our American cousins of the Kennedy family and its all too simple to forget the sheer amount of tragedy and pain that that family has endured over the years and not the typical losses either so respect from our family in Liverpool ☘️🎚️🇬🇧🙏🇺🇸
Torpex ("Torpedo explosive") is a secondary explosive, 50% more powerful than TNT by mass. Torpex comprises 42% RDX,[2] 40% TNT and 18% powdered aluminum. It was used in the Second World War from late 1942, at which time some used the names Torpex and RDX interchangeably, much to the confusion of today's historical researchers. RDX is considerably more powerful than TNT, and aluminum adds a lot of energy, although it requires an oxidizer. Was this partially an air-fuel explosive? Flying a bomber full of explosives is a pretty dangerous job. I suspect spontaneous combustion of the unstable aluminum-high explosive mixture. Even moisture in the air may have set off this unstable mix, particularly if not completely sealed.
By mid 1944 the 8th AF had Bombers to waste. So why not? Thinking from the attitude of the time
Great video!
The Navy had a little more success in the pacific with their small interstate TDR drones...
Thanks for the info on Kenedy. After years I am still trying to figure out why Kenedy was piloting that plane. This is the best idea I have seen, lately.
Thanks for sharing your research and producing this video.
🙈🙉🙊 😎 🇺🇸
People forget drones are not new.
I'm pretty sure the AA gunners wondered WTF they hit go get that massive fireball hehehe
19:40 Kennedy's Curse at its best 😢😢😢
Joe Jr was his father's chosen son for higher office.
After his death, Joe was never the same.
Much awaited, much appreciated excellent insights as always from you
The Grand Slam and TallBoy bombs are by far the best conventional weapons developed during the war.. they're limitations were only that there was only one plane that could carry them, and the still very crude bomb sights/accuracy. It's a real shame that it took so long to master precision bombing.
By far ? Why ? Because they were big, clumsy bombs ? What about the dam buster bombs or the german guided bombs ?
Interestingly, the USAAF developed ASM-A-1 _Tarzon_ bomb, which was a highly-modified _Tallboy_ bomb but with a full remote control guidance system. And it actually worked fairly well considering the technology of the day.
@@apis_aculei Well, because they were intended as a precision weapon that, when effective eliminated the threat. V3 site being a great example, as well as the Tirpitz, U-boat pens, bridges and viaducts with minimal collateral damage and civilian losses. Don't get me wrong, Barns Wallace was a genius. As you're no doubt aware he designed the Tall Boy and Grand Slam bombs as well as the Wellington bomber, and the bouncing bombs. The bouncing bombs was effective, but to my point the collateral damage and loss of civilian life was not off set by long term disruption to German manufacturing or civilian morale. German guide bombs couldn't get hardened targets.
@@Sacto1654 Tarzon: Yes, but that was post-war, and to my point, when aiming was improved and a B29 was able to carry it to greater heights the Tall Boy reached its full potential.
6:07 christ that photo throw me for a second because i was looking at it and was like i 've never seen so many bombs that big come out of one plane ... until i relied the bombs must have been from a closer plane lol
Very interesting, thanks!
I think your Cool Logo is a, well, Cool Logo. Program content is good and entertaining also. I like it
The Blenhime (sp?) just looks so cool.
Blenheim
spellings mostly correct just the e and m are the other way around
@@elennapointer701 - yes, of course. Now the spelling is obvious, eim!
@@subarucar.-584 - I am Virgo. should words remain misspelled or grammar is abused I will type, believe that.
Didn't the Americans do a similar thing in the PTO, but with single engine planes? I vaguely remember seeing footage of blue monoplanes on a beach, used in that manor.There was something like that, but I can't remember much more.
Pronounced Blenem not as its spelled
Good idea introduced before the technology was mature enough.
I guess if they tried it during vietnam war era, it would work significantly better (paul doumer bridge comes to mind)
And today we got drone-converted light aircraft converted to flying bombs hitting targets deep inside russia pretty reliably .
It was _kind_ of an interesting idea, but like the German _Mistel_ program that used modified Ju 88 bombers, the idea never really worked in actual operational use.
Imagine if the impact fuze is sensitive enough that if there was a bird strike it'll explode lol
I learned about these at the Kennedy library and had to do a double take when I saw b24 drone
And 80 years later, some knobhead would try to steer a submersible with a game controller
A crispy coated stock cube, absolutely packed with flavour, reinforced with trendy string & good to the last drop . . .
Generally the v1 economically was reasonable. The v2 was a waste. But making drone planes with radio control was smart. Just 10 years on it would have been easy in the 40s it was edge of tech and impressive.
Would be have been so good if you had said, "Doolittle, of Dr Doolittle who talks to the animals" fame!
A wasted opportunity! lol
"Some 13 year old calling you racial slurs" ROFL!😅😅😅
Blenheim in "propah Bri'ish" is pronouced "Blen-em".
Why did this video literally get no views?
Speaking of who you're not, you're no Jennifer Westhoven either:)
During the first Gulf, the bombers had to bomb from the map. As the Iraqis were painting holes onto the un attacked shelters and covering up the holes in the attacked ones. Sneaky gits.
ps 5 controller huh...
as it is, some people drive
like they're playing GTA *while* they're driving...
Yo wazzup
Lying works, just ask trump.
Imagine what it was like for an observer on the ground to see a B-24 flying overhead, and then all of a sudden, 25,000 pounds of torpex goes off at an altitude of 2000 feet… What must that that have sounded like? The loss of those two flyers is indeed a great tragedy.
16:50 So after this disastrous beginning one must wonder what the thinking wasn’t behind throwing in the Ex American Ambassador to Great Britain’s son in on the next one…. 🙏☘️🇬🇧🎚️🇺🇸
First heard of the Kamikaze style U.S Bombers in a book called Kamphzwagger 200 back in the early 80's , but they were called " Willie Babies " , itsa Book you should read Ficticious yes , but still a Good one.