What I find interesting is the fully articulated elevator at a time when most other planes had separate fixed and a movable portions on theirs. Something now seen on virtually all jet fighters.
@@ezra9256 Was THE SHIT you mean! Dude! Let's make a plane! (other dude) Ah, we work for Goodyear? (first dude) YEAH, and let's make it inflatable . But seriously, dangerous as hell, I'm sure, and I doubt it would ever be certified in this day and age, but it flew as insane as it was.
He mentioned the Robins Air Field. It is now Robins Air Force Base and has a museum associated with it. The museum is free, has inside and outside attractions, and is easily enough accessed from I-75, about an hour and a half south of Atlanta, on the way to Florida. If you have some time stop by and have a walk around!
Controllable pitch propellers whilst adding complexity might have solved many issues with this unique approach to combat flight. There is a modern version called "the Raptor" built by a guy from New Zealand and now with 3 flights under his belt. Amazingly there are no horizontal stabilizers. Might have to ask him if he knows of this design and has any of the wind tunnel data from this variant as opposed to the wind tunnel and now flight test data of his current aircraft.
@Werewolf O. London, Esq. My attention span is perfect, yet I find his machine gun style of talking highly annoying. But I love the video's so now I play them at adjusted speed :)
what about animation? There's planes like that in Mamoro Oshii's "Sky Crawlers" and a highly steampunky one in "the wings of honeamise" (a space race in a steampunk-ish world).
Thanks for this video. I always loved the futuristic ( ?) look of this aircraft, and the other pusher designs, one of which, I think it was Northrop's " Black Bullet". Hope to see a video on that one too! Thanks for a interesting and informative video!
I swear, I love the collection of 'Dark' channels. Absolutely never fails to entertain/inform and I really credit you to much of my newly found fascination and obsession with Aviation and Aviation history.
This channel quickly became one of my favorites. Somehow missed this one. From those I've spoken to, who fly the the more modern Varieze? They are some of the most stable, fun-to-fly planes, out there.
I can't remember whether the Varieze was designed to be impossible to stall, or if it would exit a stall naturally. Either way, it is a very stable, very pretty airplane.
@@Schwertsan I believe it's the "LongEZ" that they created to easily exit a stall, but the "sports" model Varieze was the more fun to fly- Faster, aerobatic, and a little more ... "squirrely", lol.
Odd that they’d pick “ascender” as a name. I’d bet dollars to doughnuts it was the ass-ender first and they chose the official name with a wink and a nod to the nickname.
Great comment. Lol A bit off topic it reminds me of a story about Korg a musical synthesizer company. They were working on a name for the successor to their wildly popular M1 synthesizer. The marketing people left the instructions on a piece of paper for the graphics department to name it the M10, which is pretty logical. The boobs in the graphics department read it upside down and printed everything with the name of it the Korg 01W. By the time corporate noticed it was too late, as all the synths brochures etc were already printed with the M10 graphics. Anyhow..the ascender name made me laugh. Cheers
I remember when I was little my dad had an old hard cover book of excellent hand drawn war birds and I still remember the chuckle he would give telling me about the nick name of this plane as well as the civilian Citabria was Airbatic backwards old memories great channel!
Fun fact the XP-55 still remains in a museum and on public display. Another prototype aircraft is called the BTD-1 This aircraft also survived. Both these aircraft are amazing.
@@soeren850 The J7W was faster than the XP-55 by 70 mph. However, the Ascender never got the engine it was designed for, the Pratt and Whitney X-1800. As it was, both planes had cooling problems though the Japanese plane had it worse, being powered by an air-cooled radial engine mounted behind the cockpit -- never an easy problem to lick. The X-1800 was a 24-cylinder H-block mill that never worked as expected. Apparently, H-block engines are troublesome by nature. Both the Napier Sabre (used by the Hawker Typhoon, a plane noted for engine fires and dangerous CO leaks into the cockpit) and the Rolls-Royce Eagle were generally failures when compared to reliable powerplants like the Merlin and the P&W R-2800.
@@enscroggs Exactly. Another design that ends up failing because the engine that it was supposed to use, never materialized, underperformed, was unreliable, had critical issues etc. The X-1800 was supposed to produce 1800-2200 HP. The prototypes were stuck with 1000-1300 Allisons. Give the Ascender that power increase and a top speed of, say 440-460mph. Didn't they work out most of the bugs and improve QA/QC on the Sabre by 1944? CO wouldn't be an issue with the engine in the back, but engine fires would be more common. Thanks for getting me to think about this a bit. :)
Could we please get an episode on the XP 67 Moonbat? as I previously stated on another video, I am deeply intrigued by the design of that plane, and would love to learn the history around its design.
Amazing how the wood and fabric design of the early 29th century still prevails today. Single fuselage; large wings forward, tail plane and rudder in the rear.
Looks like a scifi space fighter. I wish someone would grab up some of these old unique designed abandoned designs and gave them another go using modern tech and remote electronics.
@@JathTech This design was planned for the original horsepower that thet promised Pratt and Whitney engine - that never materialized - was supposed to make. Build a 600 cid big block Ford, supercharge it to 2,500 HP and let 'er rip.
@@johngregory4801 nothing they were capable of building back then stacks up to modern stuff. If you want to build a hotrod, go for it. I'm talking about revisiting concepts, and that means modern technology and modern turbine engines.
I've seen a lot of strange airplane designs (I'm from Germany), but this one is outstanding. A very cool and unusual design, I swear the Luftwaffe would have loved it ;)
I used to live near Kalamazoo, MI and took the family to the air museum there in 2003. They actually showed us the XP-55 they were getting ready to rebuild....with all the bits and pieces they were given....still in the original crates. They were missing parts that they had to fabricate, and were even given parts that didn't even go to that plane! We were told that, due to the secrecy of the plane, they had very little to go on....no blueprints, very few drawings, or schematics.....almost nothing. Luckily, there were enough photos taken that they were able to put it together as best they could...guessing all the way to what went where.....to it's final completion. The re-builders were totally amazing in being able to finish the plane.
@@eleazarp.4808 i will bet if they have had got to real dive tests with enough power that airframe would have broken the speed of sound...they had no clue what the had done
Sir your voice is better than most I've ever heard on the History channel and your topics are great. Well done and I can't wait for the next. Cheers mate!
I've built and flown models of the Rutan LongEZ and the first thing I noticed was how small the elevators were. This planform needs big elevators to achieve rotation at take off. Also, the planform is inherently stable which is great for civil aviation but perhaps not the best for a combat fighter.
Unless I missed it, I heard no mention of one of the main features of the XP55: the free-floating canard. The canard was free to pivot about a spanwise axis, with its incidence aerodynamically set by some flaps. As far as I remember, the first accident was said to be due to the canard getting pushed against its stops following a stall manoeuver, with no recovery possible. The aircraft then fell towards the ground nose up, that is, ass under.
Your just playing with words . The engineers did not know a lot about canards of the time . The stall was not the planes fault as much as the A-Hole pilot not knowing what to do with it . Normally a canard airframe should not stall as one would think . All the aircraft could do is go in a flat stall . That could be corrected into a dive . A Varieze is a canard aircraft and it is one of the safest aircraft to fly and it vary fast for what hp it has . All aircraft have a limit for that goes . People even now dont really like these aircraft and think they are silly and made name for them . Still that way to this day .
@@jeffmullinix7916 Nope. This is not a canard in the usual meaning, as the canards you mention. This is a free-floating canard. The canard was free to pivot about a spanwise axis, with its incidence aerodynamically set by some flaps.
@@jeffmullinix7916 No. A free-foating canard does not work as a traditional canard. The lift generated by a traditional canard does grow with the incidence ofthe aircraft. Whereas he lift of the free-floating canard DOES NOT grow with the incidence of the aircraft. You cannot expect a free-floating canard to stall before the wing, as it will aerodynamically adapt his own incidence, regardless of the incidence of the aircraft... unless the free-floating canard comes againts some stops.
With the swept wing and pusher design, I have always thought it would have been a great platform for a jet engine, or at least stuffing in a 4360 with counter rotating props. (think F2G2 super Corsair)
The JU87 is my favorite plane of all time. A big eagle with talons and a beak which cools the engine, plus an egg which can sink ships, blow up tanks and bridges !
@@revvingnoodle7192 They were so fast and wrecked most things! Though I remember losing a few by not microing them enough and running outta fuel lol Ahhh GBs. I loved that, for the most part, people played the part their ship was supposed to. Like DDs running ASW and CLs running AAA. The BBs forming battle lines as their scout planes began the search. The little aircraft taking off from the CVs before heading off! So much fun!
@@eyesofstatic9641 oh yes, all that you would not see in wows, and i remembrr i had 2 squads of xp55, 1 od sdb and 1 of tbd in my yorktown providing point defence for ny fellow cvs and bbs while offensive scouting in sbds, that was a great game back then
Although Glenn Curtis died several years before WWII began, his legacy is nothing short of remarkable. As a pioneer in aircraft and motorcycle development, Curtis' accomplishments are oft forgotten. Strapping on a V-8 engine to a fairly rudementary bike frame, Curtis set a world speed record of over 136 mph for motorcycles. He also invented handlebar throttle control, something that quickly became the standard for all motorcycles. In the early years of aviation, he was a pioneer in pusher-prop ideology....something that continued into the XP-55 so many years later. And let us not forget his role with Bell and Wright in developing the technologies that would eventually lead to breaking the sound barrier and beyond. The Jenny was widely regarded as one of the best trainer planes in World War I. Although the XP-55 was a "failure", it proved that conventional airframe designs were just that.....conventional. And even the P-40 Warhawk/Kittyhawk/Tomahawk, that lacked high altitude performance, was a solid aircraft to serve in both theatres of conflict....for the entirety of the war.
I wonder why they never attempted to convert the plane to jet engine. Since it already had the engine in the rear, that frame should have been easy to adapt like Japan intended with the J7W Shinden.
@@seanthompson8071 It would especially been a better choice than the F-84 which was essentially a Mustang turned into a jet yet still having straight wings. But back then US aircraft designers did not have unlocked the swept wing technology.
I'm actually from Kalamazoo and frequent the Air Zoo. I've always dubbed that plane the "Backwards Plane". There's actually a story about how the thing, a german Buzzbomb or Flying Bomb and I think one other but I can't remember which, came to the Air Zoo. Apparently the Smithsonian has so much stuff that it can't show all of it. So it's all just sitting in warehouses for who knows how long. The founder to the Air Zoo was invited over to one of these warehouses and told to take whatever they like since it probably wasn't gonna see the light of day anytime soon. So they picked out the aforementioned planes and gave them a home. The Accender is actually displayed across from the Buzzbomb and a P-47 Thunderbolt back by the entryway into the space and WW2/Pacific war sections as of this post.
I saw one of the Ascenders at MUSAF, Wright Patterson back around 1980 when I was in JROTC in high school. It, and the XP56 Black Bullet were sitting in the restoration facility. Both very interesting. The Boeing P12 that's on display there now was there as well, as a basically a skeleton.
@@johnteeling4679 Because you haven't researched it. The Lockheed L-133 StarJet was designed by Kelly Johnson's Skunkworks in the late 30's, to be powered by the L-1000 jet engine that they were developing in-house.
This layout made a lot of sense. Batter visibility for the pilot. Guns in the nose rather than compromising the wings. Most fighters were shot down by attack from behind. So engine provides some extra protection for the pilot and engine fires are behind him. This just needed the Rutan touch.
@@BusterBuizel the swedish one was a twin boom. The Ambrosini's were flying in the 30's. Years before anyone else en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrosini_SS.4
The ancient arrow (the kind shot from a bow) is stable in flight largely because of the weight at the front (the arrow head) and the much lighter fletching (often made of feather) at the rear. It is true that fighter aircraft need some instability to be successful (such as from a short fuselage, as opposed to the arrow's long shaft) so that it can turn quickly. But, to depart entirely from the the arrow's design (weight up front and stabilizing fins in the rear) is to design a thing that should never leave the design shop without providing the aircraft with extras such as computer-operated control surfaces and who knows what else. Yes, the assender was a very appropriate moniker for the XP-55 and the onlookers quite apparently could see that.
The shape reminded me immediately of Rutan's VariEze, which had graced the cover of PopSci back when I was in high school. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_VariEze
Reminds me of SAAB J21. It was produced in (for a small country) rather large number. Many of them was modified into jet aircraft, adding a "R" to the name, and subsequently used for over 10 years in the Swedish air force. R in the name SAAB J21R stands for "rea", which is an "older" Swedish word for jet power.
as someone who grew up playing "Secret Weapons over Normandy", aesthetically, i liked the XP-56 better... though i do wish the XF5U had gotten more development too....
Thank you so much for such an informative video. I had no idea how long the USAAC continued to test the XP-55. I was also unaware of the crash and I live near where Wright Field was. You have a earned a new subscriber.
Funny you mentioned that. I followed the development of Rutan's VariEze in Popular Science back in the 70's and they never even mentioned the XP-55 Ascender. Looks like Rutan's design wasn't so original after all. I'll give him credit for popularizing composites though.
@@fritzkabeano1969 there were a few other WW2 era aircraft that were canard designs such as the Kyushu Shinden and the Ambrosini SS.4. I think there was also a Focke Wolfe design but I don’t know if it ever left the drawing board. Rutan may or may not have been influenced by these designs. One thing that is certain, Rutan was able to make them work. If you’re familiar with Burts aircraft, the Rutan Boomerang asymmetrical aircraft bears a resemblance to the Blohm & Voss BV 141 reconnaissance plane.
The Kalamazoo Air Zoo is a worthwhile family trip. A second level cafeteria can provide lunch and the gift shop is quite reasonable. The Zoo features the longest aviation mural in the world. The entire history of flight surrounds such unique examples as a Grumman F7F Tigercat and an SR71 Blackbird.
Swept swing, canards, booster prop makes these planes look futuristic, ive seeen alot of old animes use these looks, the japanese also had one the j7w shinden. The shinden was developed later i beleive, not flying until after the war basically 1945, but it was a better performing plane from what i can see.
I'd like to see you start a sub channel called "Dark Seas" and see you explore the history of naval forces and tech. Lots of air and land forces on this and the other channels, but not so much navy.
I know this plane from a little heard of PS2/Xbox/PC game called Secret Weapons over Normandy. This, along with other experimental planes like the XP-56 Black Bullet and the XF5U Flying Flapjack, were included in the base game, with other little known and experimental planes as free downloads. Funnily enough, I remember this plane performing about the same as described here: rather average, if even that. It's easily outperformed by other piston-powered games of mid to late war designs, so it's more a novelty.
@@Yeaggghurte The Bell P59 is pretty much a cobra powered jet. Their airframes share enough similarities to know that their base was the cobra platforms design.
if you ever notice, a lot of the "Failure" aircraft are failures because the engine they were designed around, never comes available in their lifetime. Had the 55 had the more powerful engine, who knows how it would've done.
My brain went to Crimson Skies, but I'm ancient and it was from an era before Microtrans, QTE and Battle Royale, so I might be alone in my reveries.....
@@DavidLee-df888 good to hear man 👍 I wish I were more familiar with FASA - would I be right saying that Shadowrun is theirs ? I (ahem) recall conning my sister into considering asking for a (Genesis) for Christmas......because I just had to have the 'other' Shadowrun game 🤔 I think I got her a handmade card, very hastily done. Nice. Probably my folks would buy something on my behalf and my contribution would be a few pen strokes to the tag. Still, hand made card ! 😐
The xp-55 suffered mostly from not having it off of a dorsal mechanism to have full control in the yaw axis. A dorsal rudder would have helped. And I'm not sure whether I would want to be injected up over the plane and let the plane go under me or if I would want the propeller released so that I can be in the air along with it. I'm not sure which one is actually safer. Although at the time they didn't actually have ejection seats you actually open the cockpit and climbed out and jumped. Surprisingly it looks like a natural outgrowth of the Wright flyer. Where the wings are in the back fee vertical control surfaces are in front and the propellers in back. But the first time the light brothers ever actually flew a true powered flight, wasn't until 1907. It took them five years to actually fly further than they had done so in the glider version of their aircraft design. Being almost a flying wing Design, stall tests are never favorable. Losing control of the aircraft in roll, is clear indication of lack of Yaw stability.
What I find interesting is the fully articulated elevator at a time when most other planes had separate fixed and a movable portions on theirs. Something now seen on virtually all jet fighters.
This is a brilliant genre for a UA-cam channel. You’ll never run out of content. There’s always crazy prototype planes
Goodyear Inflato-plane has entered the chat.
@@kenbarlow4766 yeah that plane was shit lmao
@@ezra9256 Was THE SHIT you mean! Dude! Let's make a plane! (other dude) Ah, we work for Goodyear? (first dude) YEAH, and let's make it inflatable . But seriously, dangerous as hell, I'm sure, and I doubt it would ever be certified in this day and age, but it flew as insane as it was.
He mentioned the Robins Air Field. It is now Robins Air Force Base and has a museum associated with it. The museum is free, has inside and outside attractions, and is easily enough accessed from I-75, about an hour and a half south of Atlanta, on the way to Florida. If you have some time stop by and have a walk around!
Thanks for the update. I took my 9 year old son there in 2002. We spent half an hour with Robert Scott. We'll never forget.
That thing was a piece of art. Gorgeous design.
Controllable pitch propellers whilst adding complexity might have solved many issues with this unique approach to combat flight. There is a modern version called "the Raptor" built by a guy from New Zealand and now with 3 flights under his belt. Amazingly there are no horizontal stabilizers. Might have to ask him if he knows of this design and has any of the wind tunnel data from this variant as opposed to the wind tunnel and now flight test data of his current aircraft.
The only one left is at an air museum here in Michigan.
I've never actually seen footage of the Ascender only pictures, nice
You can see one on display at the Air Zoo in Kalamazoo, MI :-)
Army: "We want a weapon that does everything right, nothing wrong and costs peanuts."
Hah hah.. haaaaa...
5.56mm
Now, they get a plane years late, gets tested IN SERVICE and costs billions!
Every engineer hears this shit, all the time, minus the weapons part.
"...and never needs any maintenance"
A knife.
War Thunder Players: "You know I'm something of an expert myself."
Gamer egotism is such a _________(fill in the blank)
I play, but *glances at Jane's fighting aircraft of world war 2 on bookshelf* I have the docs to back up my observations.
@@williamkeith8944 breath of fresh air ;)
I was just thinking hes been grinding a lot of American fighter trees recently
Back in our day, it was Heroes Over The Pacific.
Who could dislike such a great channel with such a great voice! Keep up the great work!
he speed up his script recording to meet the 10mins mark
@Werewolf O. London, Esq. My attention span is perfect, yet I find his machine gun style of talking highly annoying. But I love the video's so now I play them at adjusted speed :)
Mainly because his information is usually inaccurate
He talks too fast, very annoying.
He talks like he's trying to speedrun the video and is often very incorrect about things.
Some of these designs look great on paper and in steampunk novels.
Ever play Crimson Skies?
what about animation? There's planes like that in Mamoro Oshii's "Sky Crawlers" and a highly steampunky one in "the wings of honeamise" (a space race in a steampunk-ish world).
@@PrototypeSpaceMonkey read my mind.
It looks almost like something out of Star Wars
If your novels have pictures they're coloring books and you're a child
I worked with Chuck M who’s father was the chief engineer for the Ascender. Interesting design driven by the Army Air force who issued the RFP.
Thanks for this video. I always loved the futuristic ( ?) look of this aircraft, and the other pusher designs, one of which, I think it was Northrop's " Black Bullet". Hope to see a video on that one too!
Thanks for a interesting and informative video!
I swear, I love the collection of 'Dark' channels. Absolutely never fails to entertain/inform and I really credit you to much of my newly found fascination and obsession with Aviation and Aviation history.
10 years ago I saw the XP-55 at the air zoo. It was beautiful!
"You see the enemy tries to get behind our planes, therefore we will fool the enemies to get themselves in the front"
Ha!
This channel quickly became one of my favorites. Somehow missed this one. From those I've spoken to, who fly the the more modern Varieze? They are some of the most stable, fun-to-fly planes, out there.
I can't remember whether the Varieze was designed to be impossible to stall, or if it would exit a stall naturally. Either way, it is a very stable, very pretty airplane.
@@Schwertsan I believe it's the "LongEZ" that they created to easily exit a stall, but the "sports" model Varieze was the more fun to fly- Faster, aerobatic, and a little more ... "squirrely", lol.
Ah the ole ass ender. Classic plane
Yes the ass ender 55 i own one on war
thunder
Hah! That cracked me up.
@@jedimindtrix2142 Yes! I laughed out loud!
This is the american version of the japanese kyushu j7w shindan.
@@thunberbolttwo3953 the ass ender is a better name then the japanese one
Odd that they’d pick “ascender” as a name.
I’d bet dollars to doughnuts it was the ass-ender first and they chose the official name with a wink and a nod to the nickname.
Great comment. Lol
A bit off topic it reminds me of a story about Korg a musical synthesizer company.
They were working on a name for the successor to their wildly popular M1 synthesizer.
The marketing people left the instructions on a piece of paper for the graphics department to name it the M10, which is pretty logical. The boobs in the graphics department read it upside down and printed everything with the name of it the Korg 01W.
By the time corporate noticed it was too late, as all the synths brochures etc were already printed with the M10 graphics. Anyhow..the ascender name made me laugh. Cheers
@@saladdays180s9 Hahaha that's hilarious, an entire department screwed up their orders for the entire production?
That's exactly what I thought when I heard it lol
You are exactly RIGHT. It was going to be called that _anyway,_ so they just got ahead of the curve.
The first words out of someone's mouth was "ass backwards" and the rest was history, no doubts here either.
I remember when I was little my dad had an old hard cover book of excellent hand drawn war birds and I still remember the chuckle he would give telling me about the nick name of this plane as well as the civilian Citabria was Airbatic backwards old memories great channel!
This aircraft reminds me of the imperial japanese shinden which is also of similar design
Thanks Dark, I love how your content is "Short & Sweet", I can get a quick for your content in.
Makes me want to play Crimson Skies again
Me too.
No way! I was looking for my disk right after watching this! LOL! Hope I can get it to work on Windows 10.
Exactly what I first thought
Thought the same thing lol!
Exactly what I was thinking
Fun fact the XP-55 still remains in a museum and on public display.
Another prototype aircraft is called the BTD-1 This aircraft also survived.
Both these aircraft are amazing.
"can we have shinden?"
"no we have shinden at home"
Shinden made it first flight 5 years after 🤔 But that could fly 👍
@@soeren850 incorrect, the xp55 flew in 1943, shinden flew in August 1945
@@soeren850 The J7W was faster than the XP-55 by 70 mph. However, the Ascender never got the engine it was designed for, the Pratt and Whitney X-1800. As it was, both planes had cooling problems though the Japanese plane had it worse, being powered by an air-cooled radial engine mounted behind the cockpit -- never an easy problem to lick. The X-1800 was a 24-cylinder H-block mill that never worked as expected. Apparently, H-block engines are troublesome by nature. Both the Napier Sabre (used by the Hawker Typhoon, a plane noted for engine fires and dangerous CO leaks into the cockpit) and the Rolls-Royce Eagle were generally failures when compared to reliable powerplants like the Merlin and the P&W R-2800.
@@enscroggs Exactly. Another design that ends up failing because the engine that it was supposed to use, never materialized, underperformed, was unreliable, had critical issues etc. The X-1800 was supposed to produce 1800-2200 HP. The prototypes were stuck with 1000-1300 Allisons. Give the Ascender that power increase and a top speed of, say 440-460mph. Didn't they work out most of the bugs and improve QA/QC on the Sabre by 1944? CO wouldn't be an issue with the engine in the back, but engine fires would be more common. Thanks for getting me to think about this a bit. :)
Doesn't Shinden mean Lightning?
Could we please get an episode on the XP 67 Moonbat? as I previously stated on another video, I am deeply intrigued by the design of that plane, and would love to learn the history around its design.
google is your friend bud
@@jesseandfriends1 so is UA-cam :)
@@OGBootleg GOOGLE IS UA-cam HAHAHAHAHHAHAH im just playing
ua-cam.com/video/ZnbzMxEvJ5Q/v-deo.html
@@GS250Premiun wow nice, but I'd still love to see Dark skies make a video on it as well
the inspiration for crimson skies!
Amazing how the wood and fabric design of the early 29th century still prevails today. Single fuselage; large wings forward, tail plane and rudder in the rear.
Looks like a scifi space fighter. I wish someone would grab up some of these old unique designed abandoned designs and gave them another go using modern tech and remote electronics.
And an engine that matches the original specs.
@@johngregory4801 why? There's so much better now. That defeats the purpose of doing it with modern tech
@@JathTech This design was planned for the original horsepower that thet promised Pratt and Whitney engine - that never materialized - was supposed to make.
Build a 600 cid big block Ford, supercharge it to 2,500 HP and let 'er rip.
@@johngregory4801 nothing they were capable of building back then stacks up to modern stuff. If you want to build a hotrod, go for it. I'm talking about revisiting concepts, and that means modern technology and modern turbine engines.
@@JathTech If that's what you want, buy a Saab Gripen, a canard fighter with all the modern stuff. It's better than an Eagle in many ways.
Such a beauty.
I fell in love with such pusher propeller design ever since i played "crimson sky" back in the days.
I hope you can do episodes on the other aircraft that were in the same competition, they were equally interesting
In MSCFS 3, I loved flying this! Could fly circles around anything else in the sky! Over 500 mph top speed in level flight.
I've seen a lot of strange airplane designs (I'm from Germany), but this one is outstanding. A very cool and unusual design, I swear the Luftwaffe would have loved it ;)
I used to live near Kalamazoo, MI and took the family to the air museum there in 2003. They actually showed us the XP-55 they were getting ready to rebuild....with all the bits and pieces they were given....still in the original crates. They were missing parts that they had to fabricate, and were even given parts that didn't even go to that plane! We were told that, due to the secrecy of the plane, they had very little to go on....no blueprints, very few drawings, or schematics.....almost nothing. Luckily, there were enough photos taken that they were able to put it together as best they could...guessing all the way to what went where.....to it's final completion. The re-builders were totally amazing in being able to finish the plane.
They had the swept-wing key to supersonic flight but didn't know it!
No, that was the Me-262.
@@natureandphysics403 I think what you meant was "So did the ME 262."
swept wings werent really the key, just a single element.
@@petroelb Me-262 was far ahead of this design.
@@natureandphysics403 That's fine but completely irrelevant. OP didn't say it was the first to have swept wings....
Wrights first bird was a pusher with canard.
Not a bird but a brick. It couldn't fly
@@rjnbonif3603 it can
@@eleazarp.4808 i will bet if they have had got to real dive tests with enough power that airframe would have broken the speed of sound...they had no clue what the had done
@@eleazarp.4808 Who’s the first, WRIGHT BROTHERS X SANTOS DUMONT???? ua-cam.com/video/povGggaIK2A/v-deo.html
Who’s the first, WRIGHT BROTHERS X SANTOS DUMONT???? ua-cam.com/video/povGggaIK2A/v-deo.html
i've seen this in person a very beautiful plane i thought
Sir your voice is better than most I've ever heard on the History channel and your topics are great. Well done and I can't wait for the next. Cheers mate!
What if had the Merlin? Now that's something we'll never know. I bet it would have done circles around most planes of the day. Just look at the P51
I've built and flown models of the Rutan LongEZ and the first thing I noticed was how small the elevators were. This planform needs big elevators to achieve rotation at take off. Also, the planform is inherently stable which is great for civil aviation but perhaps not the best for a combat fighter.
That's pretty cool 😎
It's a beautiful plane to see in person, and to have seen it during the restoration process.
Unless I missed it, I heard no mention of one of the main features of
the XP55: the free-floating canard. The canard was free to pivot about a
spanwise axis, with its incidence aerodynamically set by some flaps. As
far as I remember, the first accident was said to be due to the canard
getting pushed against its stops following a stall manoeuver, with no
recovery possible. The aircraft then fell towards the ground nose up,
that is, ass under.
Your just playing with words . The engineers did not know a lot about canards of the time . The stall was not the planes fault as much as the A-Hole pilot not knowing what to do with it . Normally a canard airframe should not stall as one would think . All the aircraft could do is go in a flat stall . That could be corrected into a dive . A Varieze is a canard aircraft and it is one of the safest aircraft to fly and it vary fast for what hp it has . All aircraft have a limit for that goes . People even now dont really like these aircraft and think they are silly and made name for them . Still that way to this day .
@@jeffmullinix7916 Nope. This is not a canard in the usual meaning, as the canards you mention. This is a free-floating canard. The canard was free to pivot about a
spanwise axis, with its incidence aerodynamically set by some flaps.
@@ghislaindebusbecq8864 It is still a canard just like you said it was .
@@jeffmullinix7916 No. A free-foating canard does not work as a traditional canard.
The lift generated by a traditional canard does grow with the incidence ofthe aircraft.
Whereas he lift of the free-floating canard DOES NOT grow with the incidence of the aircraft.
You cannot expect a free-floating canard to stall before the wing, as it will aerodynamically adapt his own incidence, regardless of the incidence of the aircraft... unless the free-floating canard comes againts some stops.
A really interesting choice of subject, thank you
With the swept wing and pusher design, I have always thought it would have been a great platform for a jet engine, or at least stuffing in a 4360 with counter rotating props. (think F2G2 super Corsair)
I adore this aircraft. ive been to the Air Zoo meuseum in Kalamazoo, MI. many times and have seen it there. i never realized how rare it actually was!
Long EZs grand daddy. Design is excellent. Needed more Experimental T&D.
Was thinking the same!
I live 5 minutes from this plane and i never knew it’s importance!! how cool!
Army: :"Well THAT sucked! Never do that again!"
Burt Rutan: "Hold my beer....."
Indeed:
ua-cam.com/video/MkVGILL0uIk/v-deo.html
It was a very sad day when Burt retired.
Exactly what I thought when I viewed the video. I it looks like a old militarized LongEZ.
@@chefduane3742
a militarized LongEZ... 30 years before Rutan came up with his successful canard designs.
...FWIW all the Rutan-like aircraft still have engine cooling problems. That much didn't change alright.
The JU87 is my favorite plane of all time. A big eagle with talons and a beak which cools the engine, plus an egg which can sink ships, blow up tanks and bridges !
Damn this plane was OP in Navyfield!
I see that you're a man of culture x3, ot was my favorite interceptors for GB
@@revvingnoodle7192 They were so fast and wrecked most things! Though I remember losing a few by not microing them enough and running outta fuel lol
Ahhh GBs. I loved that, for the most part, people played the part their ship was supposed to.
Like DDs running ASW and CLs running AAA. The BBs forming battle lines as their scout planes began the search.
The little aircraft taking off from the CVs before heading off!
So much fun!
@@eyesofstatic9641 oh yes, all that you would not see in wows, and i remembrr i had 2 squads of xp55, 1 od sdb and 1 of tbd in my yorktown providing point defence for ny fellow cvs and bbs while offensive scouting in sbds, that was a great game back then
Although Glenn Curtis died several years before WWII began, his legacy is nothing short of remarkable. As a pioneer in aircraft and motorcycle development, Curtis' accomplishments are oft forgotten.
Strapping on a V-8 engine to a fairly rudementary bike frame, Curtis set a world speed record of over 136 mph for motorcycles. He also invented handlebar throttle control, something that quickly became the standard for all motorcycles.
In the early years of aviation, he was a pioneer in pusher-prop ideology....something that continued into the XP-55 so many years later. And let us not forget his role with Bell and Wright in developing the technologies that would eventually lead to breaking the sound barrier and beyond.
The Jenny was widely regarded as one of the best trainer planes in World War I.
Although the XP-55 was a "failure", it proved that conventional airframe designs were just that.....conventional. And even the P-40 Warhawk/Kittyhawk/Tomahawk, that lacked high altitude performance, was a solid aircraft to serve in both theatres of conflict....for the entirety of the war.
Every time he says 'nose elevator' I feel a little bit of my soul shrivel up and die
I just saw the Ascender at the Air ZOO this summer. It's a great museum.
Ah yes! Every oldie should remember this from Crimson Skies.
And "Combat Flight Simulator 3."
Secret weapons over Normandy has the XP-55 and XP-56. Also was there a game that had a plane called black buck? Black bullet or something?
@@jkaufman357 I preferred CFS 3. I like how they had a canon in that plane.
@@bettyschnauber8238 black bullet
Thanks also for the....Beautiful picture of it to....Excellent...!!
I wonder why they never attempted to convert the plane to jet engine.
Since it already had the engine in the rear, that frame should have been easy to adapt like Japan intended with the J7W Shinden.
And it had the swept wings needed for transonic speeds. Might have been as good or better than the Sabre at killing MIG-15s.
@@seanthompson8071 It would especially been a better choice than the F-84 which was essentially a Mustang turned into a jet yet still having straight wings.
But back then US aircraft designers did not have unlocked the swept wing technology.
I’ve been to the Air Zoo and saw the aircraft. Very innovative, and imaginative concept, thanks for the great video!
Pretty wild, much like the Germam Arrow which did go into action at the end of the war.
Nothing like the Do-335.
More like the Ambrosini SS.4 which flew in 1939 and Curtis Wright copied
@@enscroggs at first glance that's what I thought of, the P-55 is definitely a far more strange aircraft the the 335
Not even close.
I'm actually from Kalamazoo and frequent the Air Zoo. I've always dubbed that plane the "Backwards Plane".
There's actually a story about how the thing, a german Buzzbomb or Flying Bomb and I think one other but I can't remember which, came to the Air Zoo.
Apparently the Smithsonian has so much stuff that it can't show all of it. So it's all just sitting in warehouses for who knows how long. The founder to the Air Zoo was invited over to one of these warehouses and told to take whatever they like since it probably wasn't gonna see the light of day anytime soon. So they picked out the aforementioned planes and gave them a home.
The Accender is actually displayed across from the Buzzbomb and a P-47 Thunderbolt back by the entryway into the space and WW2/Pacific war sections as of this post.
Germany had a similar aircraft, Donier 335 "The Arrow". Very interesting design.
No. The Arrow was more of a common design with a second engine crammed into the tail.
I saw one of the Ascenders at MUSAF, Wright Patterson back around 1980 when I was in JROTC in high school. It, and the XP56 Black Bullet were sitting in the restoration facility. Both very interesting. The Boeing P12 that's on display there now was there as well, as a basically a skeleton.
The “nose elevator” is called a “canard”.
LOL I was about to point that out
Really? I thought canards were stationery and on cars. Nose elevator sounds right
French for Duck because it resembles a Duck bill I suspect.
@@donaldsalkovick396 moving canards are a thing, yes.
But a duck is no ascender , this plane didn't live up to the phrase ' if it looks good it will fly good'
Such a great concept for a channel. I love the stylization.
It has a passing resemblance to the Lockheed jet that was proposed in the late 30s.
We could have had the first jet fighter in the world, but th USAAC hadn't grown any balls yet.
oh so you had a jet engine in the 30s that's news. How come it's not now we get to know about it
@@johnteeling4679 Because you haven't researched it. The Lockheed L-133 StarJet was designed by Kelly Johnson's Skunkworks in the late 30's, to be powered by the L-1000 jet engine that they were developing in-house.
@Opecuted Back then they were more secretive? No mention of this anywhere I've seen. Maybe somebody with a bright idea and nothing more?
This layout made a lot of sense. Batter visibility for the pilot. Guns in the nose rather than compromising the wings. Most fighters were shot down by attack from behind. So engine provides some extra protection for the pilot and engine fires are behind him. This just needed the Rutan touch.
Shinden: Who are you?
Ascender: I’m you but with more FREEDOM!
SAI-Ambrosini SS.4 enters the chat
@@NeuKrofta wasn’t there also a Swedish one?
@@BusterBuizel the swedish one was a twin boom.
The Ambrosini's were flying in the 30's. Years before anyone else
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrosini_SS.4
The ancient arrow (the kind shot from a bow) is stable in flight largely because of the weight at the front (the arrow head) and the much lighter fletching (often made of feather) at the rear.
It is true that fighter aircraft need some instability to be successful (such as from a short fuselage, as opposed to the arrow's long shaft) so that it can turn quickly. But, to depart entirely from the the arrow's design (weight up front and stabilizing fins in the rear) is to design a thing that should never leave the design shop without providing the aircraft with extras such as computer-operated control surfaces and who knows what else.
Yes, the assender was a very appropriate moniker for the XP-55 and the onlookers quite apparently could see that.
It must have been an inspiration to Burt Rutan
Rutan could make anything fly better and cheaper than just about anything else in the sky.
Burt figured out how to make the plane hard to stall.
@@rotorheadv8 He sure did. That's what jumped out at me when poor stall characteristics of the XP-55 was mentioned.
@@grndiesel If true, perhaps you can explain why Rutan's company never replaced Boeing or Airbus. Most airlines love better and cheaper.
The shape reminded me immediately of Rutan's VariEze, which had graced the cover of PopSci back when I was in high school. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_VariEze
Always amazing to see all these different aircraft I've never heard of. Amazing story of evolution. Great work, God Bless ❤
I thought I knew a lot of aviation history, but I've never seen this plane before. Nice video.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrosini_SS.4
Reminds me of SAAB J21. It was produced in (for a small country) rather large number. Many of them was modified into jet aircraft, adding a "R" to the name, and subsequently used for over 10 years in the Swedish air force. R in the name SAAB J21R stands for "rea", which is an "older" Swedish word for jet power.
Huh, very similar to the Kyushu J7W Shinden....should cover that airplane as well.
And the Henschel Hs P.75 everyone was trying it around that time.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrosini_SS.4
Saw one of the two surviving planes at the Air Zoo in MI. Cool plane.
as someone who grew up playing "Secret Weapons over Normandy", aesthetically, i liked the XP-56 better... though i do wish the XF5U had gotten more development too....
Great vid, I like the Ascender's design.
Everytime I see that airplane I get flashbacks from sweaty players shooting me down in War Thunder 😤
Burt Rutan made the general concept to work beautifully.
Ah...the Ascender...or as how I've known it...the "Hughes Bloodhawk from Crimson Skies."
...I miss playing that tabletop...
Fascinating. Despite a lifetime in military aviation, this was news to me.
This thing looks like it's right out of Caprica.
Thank you so much for such an informative video. I had no idea how long the USAAC continued to test the XP-55. I was also unaware of the crash and I live near where Wright Field was. You have a earned a new subscriber.
Firstime seeing this aircraft is on Crimson Skies...yeah good old PC game
Thanks for the in depth coverage.
LongEz's veteran grandad.
*At **5:12** If you notice that rear prop that's supposed to "jettison" itself during a pilot ejection is still on that crashed plane on the ground.*
"When the jet engine arrived the design was shelved." How odd. That design was meant for a turbine all along.
that's my thought's exactly. slap a Nene in the back and boom....
My thoughts as well. Fixes a lot of problems.
There is or was one of these or a model very similar to it at the Kalamazoo Air Zoo. It's a GORGEOUS looking aricraft!
This fighter looks like a Burt Rutan Scaled Composites design.
Funny you mentioned that. I followed the development of Rutan's VariEze in Popular Science back in the 70's and they never even mentioned the XP-55 Ascender. Looks like Rutan's design wasn't so original after all. I'll give him credit for popularizing composites though.
@@fritzkabeano1969 there were a few other WW2 era aircraft that were canard designs such as the Kyushu Shinden and the Ambrosini SS.4. I think there was also a Focke Wolfe design but I don’t know if it ever left the drawing board.
Rutan may or may not have been influenced by these designs. One thing that is certain, Rutan was able to make them work.
If you’re familiar with Burts aircraft, the Rutan Boomerang asymmetrical aircraft bears a resemblance to the Blohm & Voss BV 141 reconnaissance plane.
I gotta imagine the idea of having the entire engine block between you and any fighter chasing you must've sounded appealing.
This is basically the plane from Crimson Skies.
I’m glad I’m not the only Crimson Skies player here
I was looking for a comment like this
The Kalamazoo Air Zoo is a worthwhile family trip. A second level cafeteria can provide lunch and the gift shop is quite reasonable. The Zoo features the longest aviation mural in the world. The entire history of flight surrounds such unique examples as a Grumman F7F Tigercat and an SR71 Blackbird.
Very nice, great in war thunder
Or world of warplanes
Swept swing, canards, booster prop makes these planes look futuristic, ive seeen alot of old animes use these looks, the japanese also had one the j7w shinden. The shinden was developed later i beleive, not flying until after the war basically 1945, but it was a better performing plane from what i can see.
I'd like to see you start a sub channel called "Dark Seas" and see you explore the history of naval forces and tech. Lots of air and land forces on this and the other channels, but not so much navy.
Especially when it comes to submarine tech, where there’s a lot of really bizarre stuff out there.
There is the "5 minute guide to warships" on the 'drachinifel' you tube channel... much submarine goodness to behold.
I know this plane from a little heard of PS2/Xbox/PC game called Secret Weapons over Normandy. This, along with other experimental planes like the XP-56 Black Bullet and the XF5U Flying Flapjack, were included in the base game, with other little known and experimental planes as free downloads. Funnily enough, I remember this plane performing about the same as described here: rather average, if even that. It's easily outperformed by other piston-powered games of mid to late war designs, so it's more a novelty.
"When you get to the Ground, tell them Nathan Zachary sent you."
The chapter read "Unsatisfied Performance" after the airshow disaster is maybe the driest humor I've seen in a long time. Todd Grande surpassed.
Imagine if they put a jet engine on this instead of the bell aircobra platform
They PUT A JET IN THE AIRCOBRA?
@@Yeaggghurte The Bell P59 is pretty much a cobra powered jet. Their airframes share enough similarities to know that their base was the cobra platforms design.
Thats what SAAB did with the J21. Worked well.
if you ever notice, a lot of the "Failure" aircraft are failures because the engine they were designed around, never comes available in their lifetime. Had the 55 had the more powerful engine, who knows how it would've done.
Yes
looks a lot like the Japanese J7W "Sindin"
TBF, there isn't much choice for variation in a pusher-canard configuration.
This aircraft bears a resemblance to the Japanese J7W Shinden. It was a radial-engined pusher with 6 propeller blades which could reach 400+mph.
My brain went to Crimson Skies, but I'm ancient and it was from an era before Microtrans, QTE and Battle Royale, so I might be alone in my reveries.....
Me too. I love all FASA games, including Crimson Skies.
@@DavidLee-df888 good to hear man 👍 I wish I were more familiar with FASA - would I be right saying that Shadowrun is theirs ? I (ahem) recall conning my sister into considering asking for a (Genesis) for Christmas......because I just had to have the 'other' Shadowrun game 🤔
I think I got her a handmade card, very hastily done. Nice. Probably my folks would buy something on my behalf and my contribution would be a few pen strokes to the tag. Still, hand made card ! 😐
The xp-55 suffered mostly from not having it off of a dorsal mechanism to have full control in the yaw axis. A dorsal rudder would have helped. And I'm not sure whether I would want to be injected up over the plane and let the plane go under me or if I would want the propeller released so that I can be in the air along with it. I'm not sure which one is actually safer. Although at the time they didn't actually have ejection seats you actually open the cockpit and climbed out and jumped.
Surprisingly it looks like a natural outgrowth of the Wright flyer. Where the wings are in the back fee vertical control surfaces are in front and the propellers in back. But the first time the light brothers ever actually flew a true powered flight, wasn't until 1907. It took them five years to actually fly further than they had done so in the glider version of their aircraft design.
Being almost a flying wing Design, stall tests are never favorable.
Losing control of the aircraft in roll, is clear indication of lack of Yaw stability.