The Best American Plane to Never Fight - XB-51
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- The Martin XB-51 was a colossal bomber aircraft built in the late 1940s that exceeded all expectations and was probably the finest bomber that never went to battle.
Not to be confused with the B-52, one of the most famous aircraft of all time, the B-51's lifespan was too brief to be awarded an official nickname. Still, its unusually prolonged shape granted it the moniker of "The Flying Cigar."
Faster than almost any fighter of its time, military experts believe the Martin XB-51 could have made a substantial difference in the Southeast Asian wars, but it was never produced.
Defense analyst Robert Dorr wrote in the Defence Media Network: (QUOTE): “The XB-51 incorporated a rotary weapons bay that enabled it to deliver bombs while flying at high speed. Capable of 645 mph at sea level in level flight, the XB-51 would have been able to run away from most fighters of its era.”
Despite successful trial runs and a promising future, the B-51 project was ultimately canceled for mysterious political reasons...
---
Join Dark Skies as we explore the world of aviation with cinematic short documentaries featuring the biggest and fastest airplanes ever built, top-secret military projects, and classified missions with hidden untold true stories. Including US, German, and Soviet warplanes, along with aircraft developments that took place during World War I, World War 2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the Gulf War, and special operations mission in between.
As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Skies sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect and soundtracks for emotional impact. We do our best to keep it as visually accurate as possible.
All content on Dark Skies is researched, produced, and presented in historical context for educational purposes. We are history enthusiasts and are not always experts in some areas, so please don't hesitate to reach out to us with corrections, additional information, or new ideas.
![The Fighter That Tried To Replace The Spitfire | Martin-Baker MB.5 [Aircraft Overview #82]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1CJWEc_sQkQ/mqdefault.jpg)
They thought the quality of their planes would be all they needed to win the contract and didn't buy enough lobbyists.
They just barely avoided cancellation with the B-26. No one wanted to see them come that close to blowing it with the B-51. Martins are known for having long "teething" periods...
@@craigwall9536 That's why Martin was given a good British design to build...
@Drone Strike And perversely thje USAF wanted to kill the U2 but the politicians made them hang onto it, in both cases, sense prevailed.
@SECDUP Were you not paying attention to the video?
@@FIREBRAND38 Did you?
To the Dark channel owners, each and every one of them.....thank you.
It's the same dude, different channels for different subjects
*same narrator for different channels
Agreed! Love all the Dark channels, and the narration is top notch. Thank you!
It’s a program. You can be a narrator as well
Such punctuation 😐
The B-51 while an interesting design with some neat features in its design, like variable incidence wing, rotating bomb racks and trijet configuration, it had some major drawbacks. It had to short of a range, was G limited, thus restricted maneuverability under high gross weights, poor takeoff and landing performance and the bicycle landing gear limited its ability to use alternative airfields, which were mandatory due to its very limited endurance. (Under 1500 miles is a serious limitation for a jet bomber.) the Canberra was a far superior airplane in every way that really counted for its mission requirements. About the only thing the B-51 did better was go faster with a bit better high speed maneuverability, but not enough to counter jet fighters of the period. It also lacked payload capacity
Probably didn't help that both prototypes crashed and were destroyed.
> It had to short of a range, [...]
According to the Wikipedia entries for the XB-51 and the English Electric Canberra bombers, the combat range of the former was 1,075 miles versus the latter's 810 miles.
The U.S. version of the Canberra, the B-57 Canberra has a combat range of 950 miles.
> was G limited, [...]
Name a combat aircraft that isn't G-limited. Seriously.
I don't recall ever seeing a Vg versus Vn diagram that didn't show a G-limit during some part of an aircraft's flight envelope.
> [...] poor takeoff and landing performance [...]
I await with bated breath for you to cite a reference to justify this claim especially in light of the JATO bottles shown in the video on the XB-51 ... something I can't recall ever seeing on a Canberra.
> and the bicycle landing gear limited its ability
> to use alternative airfields, which were mandatory
> due to its very limited endurance.
Pretty much every jet powered U.S. combat aircraft that I can think of required a long, well kept runway to operate out of and so I find your comment to be questionable, especially since the combat range (i.e. the un-refueled range of the aircraft given a normal combat load) for the XB-51 is better/longer than the combat range of either the English Electric Canberra or the B-57 Canberra.
Perhaps you are confusing the ferry range (i.e. the maximum range carrying the maximum amount of internal and external fuel which according to Wikipedia is indeed longer for both the English Electric and the B-57 Canberra versus the XB-51.
> (Under 1500 miles is a serious limitation for a
> jet bomber.)
Then the Canberra is very seriously limited as a jet bomber.
> the Canberra was a far superior airplane in every
> way that really counted for its mission requirements.
"Superiority"/"inferiority" depend on what criteria is used.
You haven't mentioed any and so any claim that one aircraft is "superior" or "inferior" is basically meaningless.
> About the only thing the B-51 did better was go
> faster with a bit better high speed maneuverability, [...]
And climb faster indicating that it's thrust to drag ratio was better than either Canberra.
> [...] but not enough to counter jet fighters of the
> period.
As was the case for the Canberra as well.
That's why there such things as air superiority fighters.
> It also lacked payload capacity.
Really?
The way I read the Wikipedia entries, the XB-51 could carry at least one ton more than either of the Canberras.
Where are you coming up with your information?
@@lewiscole5193 And yet the USAAF chose a foreign design instead of the XB51, which duly got cancelled. Were they being stupid?
@@64Alvis
> Were they being stupid?
You are making the mistake of assuming that despite being made of a large number of people, all of whom do things for different reasons, the Air Force can be thought of a single intelligent entity that does things for a single "rational" reason.
So far as I can tell, that's not the way things work at all.
The easiest example that I can think of to demonstrate that this is the case is history behind the F-X, what eventually became the F-15.
It didn't start out to be a very maneuverable aircraft at all, but rather an F-111 on steroids.
It is only because of the actions of a relatively small number of people within the military establishment, the Lightweight Fighter Mafia, that it is what it is today.
And they didn't want to stop at what the F-15 became but rather to continue to reduce the weight of the F-X to become an even hotter aircraft, the F-XX which only after a some behind-the-scenes intrigue, eventually became the F-16.
While it may be amusing to view how the F-15 and F-16 came into existence as rational decisions made by a unified Air Force, that's not what really happened at all
So you'll excuse me or not (as I don't really care), but I consider your attempt to try to characterize the decision making process behind why the B-57 got built and the XB-51 didn't as rational/irrational/smart/stupid as more than a bit silly.
If you know more of the gory details not covered in the video that supports your notion that this is not the case, then feel free to enlighten me/us.
@@64Alvis the role the B-51 was designed for was less critical than the designed role of the canabera
9:35 The pilots were likely not very experienced with slower accelerating early jet engines. From what I've seen, they need to stay on the ground much longer than props of the same era.
They literally fly planes for a living though. Pretty sure they knew what was up.
Early jet engines did not produce a lot of thrust, so the early jet bombers accelerated very slowly unless helped with JATO/RATO thrust to get them up to flying speed before running out of runway, until SAC built bomber bases with 2-mile-long runways. A fully loaded B-52 and a fully loaded 747 both need about 10,000 feet of runway to get airborne, but the 747 does it at twice the weight of the B-52.
@@danpatterson8009 What model 747 would that be?
@@danpatterson8009 747s had a requirement to use the same length runways as 707s and DC8s. It is part of the reason they have the huge and complex Fowler flap system and large leading edge slats. Needed for the extra lift they provide at low landing speeds. The early first generations 747 engines had trouble making the needed thrust for takeoff performance. So some of the early jets were equipped with water injection. Plus the pilots had some operational tricks they used to coax more takeoff thrust out of the engines. But engine revisions and updates improved performance and the water injection systems were superseded and removed later. Even back then, the 747 was not lacking in power. Outside of the long retired supersonic concord and the transonic Convair 880, it is still the fastest commercial jetliner aircraft flying. The 747-200’s were sometimes flown at Mach .9 to .92 on repositioning flights with no passengers. Most big airliners today are flown at Mach .8 to .85. The planes had no trouble flying that fast, they just used a lot more fuel. (The fuselage of the 747 was shaped to fly at higher speeds than they normall operated at.) the newer models had the wings re-configured for a little less speed and more fuel efficiency. By the way, a DC8 did a test flight where it actually exceeded the speed of sound, reaching Mach 1.01. (Reaching that speed was no problem, but slowing down from that speed revealed some interesting control events that definitely got the pilots attention. They had shock wave issues with the flight control surfaces. It caused unCommended deflection of the ailerons and the pilots ability to operate the elevators and rear horizontal stabilizer trim and elevators.) A speed record it held for around 20 years until the concord beat it. And the Russian tu144 supersonic airliner. There have been times civilian airliners have exceeded the speed of sound, but those were in out of control situations and most of them never survived the event. (They crashed.) I can think of maybe 2 that recovered and landed more or less safely.
The C-130's still have prop's for a reason.
Always love your military stories of days gone. Very intriguing and informative. Nico from Trinidad and Tobago
Your work is a great asset to all of us that love aviation!
Would be interesting to cover the CF-100, which you briefly mentioned as part of the Canberra competition
I have been watching your videos for a few years and really appreciate them
I actually saw _Toward the Unknown_ some years ago, and remembered the B-51 from that movie. Thanks for reminding me of the movie title!
Toward the Unknown (1956) starring William Holden and the B-51...filmed at Edwards.
Check Yeager cameo!
I grew up near the Airforce Museum at Wright Patt. In all my trips to it's various incarnations over the years I never saw anything about the xb 51.
If they had an exhibit on it I must have missed it.
With only the two prototypes built and both of them destroyed in crashes there's not much they could display. Might be a picture or two somewhere in the Experimental hangar with other types that didn't see production but unless you've got days to wander and look at stuff it would be easy to miss, especially when you're eyes keep getting drawn to that sexy XB-70 sitting there. ;)
Too good to be true, situation normal all fouled up. Thanks buracacy...
The T-tail was designed by German designer Hans Multhopp, who was also the designer of the Ta-183, which was to use the same tail, without the central bullet nose. Multhopp was working for Martin at the time, and there was some grumbling about German design influence. I wonder if some of that grumbling was due to the swept wings, the German research still being studied at the time.
I wonder how you could turn that design into a seaplane, with the inlets on those two forward engines being so low in relation to the fuselage.
Ekranoplan Stealth Submarine.
They already had one on the centerline. They'd have had to move the other two above the wing if they were going to use a fly boat type hull- doable, but too much of a stretch to start cutting metal. But it could be done if you wanted it bad enough. Fortunately we had the Brits to make that mistake for everyone.
...oh...you mean the radical new concept of water cooling?
See Martin’s P6M Seamaster for the US Navy. It has a few similarities, particularly the t-tail.
Did I hear in the video correctly when they said 8 cannons (20mm) in the nose as an option? That's a lot of firepower right there.
Interesting. This "American" Plane looks very similar to a german concept Plane. The
Me P.1102
Along with many US concepts.
Cool video. I never knew we began building such aircraft so soon after WW2. Learn something new everyday.
These odd ball a/c were always a fascination as a kid... And could get a plastic model of it at any five n dime store...
NEVER seen this thing, and I thought I saw it all!!!! Wtf, I love it!!!!!👍
Looks like something England would have built ....
…what England would have built was the Canberra/B57. 😎
@@Dunk057 All those English planes have that blunt BRUTAL look,
The harrier, the Victor, the Vulcan ect.
@@DUBEE43 Have you seen the nose on a Victor? Certainty not blunt.
@@kelvinfoote9897 True, but I'm thinking head on, looks like a train to me.....
It's an opinion dude, and I'm done explaining myself, good day....
@@DUBEE43 No need to be so tetchy mate. Mine is just an opinion , like yours. Bye
Good Job Jerry. Awesome to see your still dabbling in what you've always loved. Cool Channel.
Martin's seems like it got the short end of the stick often. Maybe not enough contributions to congress. And their planes did not get the publicity other companies' planes got.
Martin built the licenced B57, which was the aircraft selected over the XB51, so I don't think they lost out all that much. B57 was a proven design with extraordinary altitude, range, and stability.
If by donations you mean bribes and kickbacks
Martin often did get a lot of contracts and was a major defense contractor before, during and after WW2. The main times I can think of them getting the short stick was the 146 (which was as the air force said, an evolutionary dead end, but it was better than the Bolo), and the XB-51 (which their aircraft could be argued to be better fit or a worse fit) and in that last example they still got a production contract.
Some of the other times they lost contracts due to just not having the ideal aircraft (XB-48) or the aircraft they were creating didn't have a role anymore (P6M). Aircraft like the Maryland would find production despite not being ideal, and aircraft like the Mauler would have aspects that would let them down. But they still had great designs like the B-26 and even produced a lot of B-29's including the Silverplate ones.
Don't forget the tumultuous early years when Glenn Martin ran the show. He had to step on a lot of toes in order to get his designs & products noticed & appreciated.
@@tpxchallenger Interestingly NASA still has a couple of those in use to this day, both heavily modified with JT3 engines and extended wings for high altitude. In the end the B 57 did prove itself as a versatile and useful aircraft especially for an first series jet bomber. It may have been a licensed British design, but Martin went very far with it.
I really dig the presentation of dark skies, dark docs, etc. however obvious errors keep showing up. I mean, there was a F-100 Super Saber photo.
The XB-51 was not mysteriously canceled. It wasn’t as good as the XB-47 which had twice the range, double the payload for a penalty of about 90 mph.
not that you should expect anyone to just hop right into the SHOW MORE video info, but there is this:
_As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Skies sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect and soundtracks for emotional impact. We do our best to keep it as visually accurate as possible._
that is *not* to say they don't make legitimate errors (regularly, lol), but they kinda covered their ass on this matter.
Another brilliant upload 👏
Thank you.
This needs to be a 1:48 plastic model. Yes there is a resin 1/72, but someone needs to make this kit.
Thank you, informative and enjoyable as always.
The Canberra was easily a superior aircraft to the XB-51...and better looking! The Canberra is still flying as a NASA research aircraft.
The Canberra is an absolutely incredible machine. Utterly unmatched. Rumour remains an RAF PR.9 took a photo... Looking down on a USAF U2
@@RFSA180 Agreed, the Canberra was a great design but I like the looks of the XB-51 better, it looks fast just sitting on the ground.
Because NASA doesn't fly combat missions...
@@RFSA180 that's only possible on ascent. I refuse to believe a plane with that wide of a fuselage, with that short of a wing span could get enough pressure at the altitudes a U2 Flys at...
@@patrickasplund The Martin B-57 Canberra flew reconnaissance and bombing missions in Vietnam. Reconnaissance versions continued long after bombing versions were retired.. NASA's B57Fs are still flying. The aircraft has been in service longer than the B52. The first one flew in 1949.
I never heard of this aircraft before. Thanks for this video!
Another excellent post, well produced and researched. Great work Dark.
it's amazing what you give us because we learn about things something new everytime thanks
I think I found (or imagined) some missing transcripts from the Key West Conference that may clear up why it was cancelled;
Defence Secretary: Navy will give up the USS United States, the Air Force will give up the XB-51, the Army fixed-winged aviation, and the Coast Guard, for responding within 30 days gets this carriage clock.
Coast Guard: oh lovely.
Assistant Defence Secretary; Ahem... You forgot about the ballistic missiles.
Sce Def: Air Force, I thought you owned it?
AF: No we thought it was Army.
CG: We heared it was for blowing up other continents, so we didn't give a toss.
I assume the 'other' bomber was the Camberra B-57. That was a very good plane and I can see why they wouldn't need to spend the money on both.
Plus martin got to build the canberras so they didnt loose out too badly imo
What was SAC's goals at the time? They had B-45's already flying and were working on the B-47. They nearly bought some RB-48 flying wings. It was clear that the B-51 was going to have a short service life and needed to be deployed as soon as possible or it would end up being obsolete before it became operational. Also in 1955 development of the F-105 started and despite it being tagged with an "F" it was really a bomber and would carry nuclear weapons with mach 2 speed.
I'm guessing that they felt the B-57 would get into production faster and have fewer delays in deployment, giving it a longer useful life before B-58 and F-105's replaced it. I think that the service record of the B-57 tends to prove they made a wise choice. Even Yeager flew them in combat in Vietnam.
Excellent presentation! Keep up the good work.
Martin XB-51 was a inferior plane, Martin ended up being chosen to manufacture the B-57.
Canberra was certainly a better plane especially with the B-57 cockpit
@@davidmcintyre8145 yup 👍 click bait titule
Why do people keep comparing it to the B-57, they were built for two completely different roles!
@@blockstacker5614 The Canberra was built for many roles it was conceived as nothing more or less than a jet powered mosquito capable of all the roles the mossie could do including carrier operations
The narrator calls it a fighter . . . . with an XB label?
Nice job! Learned something new today!
I’ve been watching your vids since 2017 and have loved every one of them. I check my feed constantly waiting for new uploads, especially with Dark Skies
Such fantastic productions.
Excellent as always
Shame it was not developed further. The p-47 thunderbolt was altered to be more fuel efficient and retained it combat capabilities. I am sure this could of been done for the XB-51.
I almost paused at 4:51 when I heard "SPOILERS"!
"Oh n- oh wait, it's a jet..."
That's not the only mistake the AAF/AF ever made in the acquisition of it's toys.
Unless I missed it, I did not hear about the most unusual feature of this aircraft. The wing variable incidence. At 4'46'', one may see a degrees scale on the fuselage to indicate the wing angle with respect to the fuselage.
He did say it around 3:20
@@montec6113 Definitely missed it. He's speaking so fast ! Thanks for the information.
@@ghislaindebusbecq8864 No it was so poorly emphasized it was easily missed. I think the concept escaped the narrators comprehension.
I enjoy your documentaries documentaries very much you should do one about the state of Kansas during world war II and the bomber basis around Dodge City
" ... Charles Yeager ..." Is that it? No reference to Chuck's later work?
He was not the story, the aircraft is.
1:01 shows an F-100.
The XB-51 did seem to be "a bit crashy". It's as well it gave way to the Canberra
As usual a wonderful video… I have spent my entire life in aviation and never really heard about the XB-51 but it looks to be an amazing aircraft. I understand about politics with aviation I spent 20 years working on the F 14 only to see it canceled for a lesser aircraft but that’s a whole Nother story… Perhaps you might think about doing a video on the competition between an actual flying F 14 and a computer simulated Super hornet
I would have liked to see how they envisioned a seaplane version with that engine configuration. Is the last thing I would have thought of.
Like the Avro Arrow, politics and likely graft, played a large role.
Beautiful bird and the movie it starred in was great!
I really love the way you pronounce Canberra......Canbeara!
Seems to be the trend. Military has some initial requirements, gets exactly what they needed, then alters the mission/requirements, and goes with some secondary design for being better in only one superficial way.
Not really. The Canberra was superior is almost every way. Better take off performance, better endurance, higher service ceiling, could carry more and larger bombs over a longer distance, was much more maneuverable, much simpler to maintain, etc. The only way in which the XB-51 was superior was speed. Bluntly, both then and now, for the USAF to select a foreign competitor over a domestic design, the foreign aircraft needs to be something really damn special.
Good video about a good, but unusual aircraft. Sometimes we are our own worst enemies and that is true in the case of the B-51.
Thank you
It's my first time seeing this aircraft design. So it was taken down not because of technical flaw but political reasons. Kind of reminds you the SR-71 Blackbird. A successful design that was taken down for no real reason despite having a really clean combat record.
I so enjoy your content!!
The Canberra too was fitted with a rotary bomb bay.
The Canberra was in service with RAF untill 2006. The design of it was that good. Also correct me if i'm wrong but i think NASA still operates martin made canberras at the johnson space center.
> Also correct me if i'm wrong but i think NASA
> still operates martin made canberras at the
> johnson space center.
NASA still operates a *HIGHLY MODIFIED* B-57 (much larger wing area with a different wing planform, a larger tail, and and larger engines.
> The Canberra was in service with RAF untill
> 2006. The design of it was that good.
And the British Government was also that cheap, especially since they could afford to be, living under the nuclear umbrella provided by the U.S. without having to crank out new aircraft all the time.
I think the Avro arrow might be an interesting topic for a video
Engines placement perfect for FOD.
A plane with engines fixed so low was considered for a seaplane!
I wonder why it was not put into production as a seaplane
Great video, but isn’t the Tu 73 the first trijet to fly?
You like saying Canberra incorrectly don't you?
Would help if you explained where the pronunciation was wrong "kan·br·uh".
@@shifty7739 CAN-berra vs. can-BERra
Canberra is produced as in the City in Australia; now I understand the problem, even the Aussies cannot say it right.
@@shifty7739 They say it as a 2 syllable word. "e" is silent.
back then you needed to use a slide rule and smoke a pipe to be able to design planes
Tweed jacket and leather arm patches, etc. (I have still got my slide rule).
The Spiritual Predecessor of the TSR2...
TSR2 is probably the best bomber which never actually fought
You don't mention the Boeing B-47 that was already in operation when the XB-51 was still in the prototype stage. Yes, Boeing had a way with the USAAF generals who had flown Boeing B-17s and B-29s during WWII, and bigger budgets as well.
Saw a movie from the 50s this plane was called the gildert 220
Sorry it was the fx20
1:01 so ... why the random shot of jato F-100??
B-51 wouldn't have stand up against SAMS or Mig's in Vietnam.
The B-51 would not have went into battle unescorted. And other than the occasional SR-71 sortie, there was no combat aircraft immune to SAM attack.
Also 15 years later
@@chikato7106 doesn't matter!
Interesting aircraft
as always,,,,great video(s)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What does "slower acceleration than required mean"? It is the speed and not the acceleration that determines if the aircraft can take off. Did slower acceleraton lead to insufficient speed for take-off?
Enjoy your videos!👍
Mysterious political reasons. That says it all about democratic government then, now and probably in times to come.
I always though totalitarian dictatorship was the way forward myself.
Still, maybe next time ;)
IKE didn't like the military industrial complex.
Very interesting video on the XB-51 because I know next to nothing about this bomber. Unfortunately politics always plays a heavy hand that has nothing to do with technology advances....
I knew very little about this particular plane. It now seems it was denied a fair judgement.
No the Canberra was just a better aircraft. Sometime it is just that a better plane comes along. And the Air Force couldn’t build both. To bad. It would’ve been cool.
The Canberra was crap. Especially compared the the XB-51
@@kevintemple245 How so? The Canberra outperformed the XB-51 in every parameter except speed.
HOLY SHIT THE VINDICATOR WAS REAL OH MY GOD WHAT THE FUCK
"Mysterious/Political Reasons"
As. In Failure to incluse massive kickbacks in Congressional Funding.
All new to me - thanks for posting.
Micro-thing - towards, the end, 'on the part of' in this context, not 'on behalf of'. Lose no sleep, and all best.
3:37 - "What the airframe lacked in aerodynamic finesse, it made up in sheer engine power." No, it didn't; one of the XB-51's failings was that it was underpowered - a too-long takeoff run is why one of the prototypes crashed on takeoff.
Nice and Interesting.
Its categorized a loitering ground attack aircraft with nose cannons never as a bomber , there are books about this subject , also it used a brake parachute , it could also outperform other early jets in climb rate
I hardly recognized the capitol without the fence razor wire and fully vetted soldiers in place.
Love it assertory😊
Very interesting
The low to ground engines were subject to greater FOD damage the other similar aircraft. I bet the mechanics liked the low engines. FOD foreign object damage
Pretty much all U.S. combat aircraft expect to operate from relatively clean runways.
And one way to avoid ingesting FOD is to make sure that the engines are no where near something that can kick up FOD like the landing gears.
And if you look closely, you'll see that the front landing gear is behind the front of the front engines.
Lewis Cole true. Maintain ability engineers always like low engines. FOD blows as used in some B737-200'would help. It hard to argue with the success of the Canberra 3 are still inservice with NASA. It's hard to fault the Air Force decision.
1:00 Nice shot of the "Hun" with RATO (or is that a JATO?)
WHY?
Why do you show an F100 super Saber @1:00?
it has nothing to do with anything you're talking about
Normal for this goofball
This would make a solid 7.7 in war thunder
Unusual... An aircraft that I had no previous knowledge of. Seems to be the US equivalent of the TSR 2, which behaved itself on trials, was liked by crews and engineers, and was far in advance of anything else, and yet was cancelled due to outside (political) prejudice and short-sightedness. People can be really, really stupid sometimes.
Thank you for this - it was a beautiful aircraft.
I very much doubt the XB-51 was cancelled over politics. In the competition between the XB-51, CF-100 and Canberra, all the political pressure would have been pushing in favor of the domestic, Martin design. For the USAF to adopt a foreign competitor over a domestic design was all but unheard of so reading between the lines, the XB-51 probably had some serious, undisclosed flaws that prompted the decision - that and the fact that the Canberra was a really, really good aircraft.
4:18 - I don't know what plane that's a diagram for, but it plainly isn't an XB-51.
Not sure there was anything 'strange' or 'political' about why this aircraft never went into production. By the time the XB-51 was airborne let alone proving its worth the EE Canberra had already flown and was showing a clear ability and so the USAF evaluated all options and chose the Canberra which became the Martin B-57.
The requirements for the XB-51 kept changing through out its lifetime and when they changed to include a night intruder role, the Air Force opened up to accepting offers for other interim aircraft that could fill the role until the XB-51 was ready to do it.
The Canberra was didn't fulfill the role the Air Force had in mind (in particular high speed), but they though it was Good Enough because it was effectively available right away (or rather as soon as it could be licensed to a U.S. manufacturer as the U.K. couldn't produce the numbers that the Air Force wanted).
Martin offered to make a "Super Canberra" with swept wings that would be faster than the Canberra, but the Air Force didn't want to wait to go through a further development cycle and so Martin began making almost exact copies of the U.K. Canberra before eventually making far more significant changes resulting in the B-57 we normally think of, and then ... the XB-51 was dropped.
But let's be clear here: The Canberra was better in terms of endurance and service ceiling, but worse at combat range, cruising speed, and weapons load.
And it was never designed to do the low level bombing and ground attack that it was eventually pressed into.
Very good but try not to sound so urgent in your commentary.
Hey warthunder I got your next patch flagship idea right here
DEEP POCKETS. WIN EVERY TIME
Something off about the tail-wing assembly just doesn't fit the rest of the craft
Yes, it looks a little small.
@@timp3931
The reason for a horizontal stabilizer (aside from pitch control) is that it generates a tail downward moment to compensate for the nose down pitching moment normally generated by most wings.
But lo and behold, the placement of the engines means that they will generate a nose upward pitching moment which means that one can get by with a smaller tail.
i like the way the commentator talks . he makes it facsinating to watch THANK you SIR
The concept of a light bomber that can outrun most fighters was validated as useful during WWII. Look at the performance of the Mosquito in the European theater... the same theater a Cold War turned hot would play out in. Politics and greasing palms won over this plane.
No, it just wasn't very good - a fact the documentary takes pains to obscure. Consider that the XB-51 had weighed 10,000 lbs more than the Canberra but barely generated any more thrust from it's three engines than the Canberra got from two. It needed JATO bottles to take off from conventional length airfields, had serious problems with tail strikes from over-rotation and was a nightmare to land. It also had basically no range, was fragile and couldn't carry as many bombs as the Canberra. Considering how protectionist the US military aviation market was and that it was competing against two foreign designs, the politics and palm greasing should all have been working in it's favour but the XB-51 still managed to lose a competition that had been tailored to it's specification. It was that bad...
1 minute mark was a zero launch super sabre
Some companies were better at spreading around the graft then others...
The B-47 had a larger payload
It could carry a thermonuclear device
The XB-51 couldn't