Go to ground.news/rex to stay fully informed on breaking news, compare coverage and avoid media bias. Sign up for free or subscribe for unlimited access if you support the mission. F.A.Q Section Q: Do you take aircraft requests? A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:) Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others? A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both. Q: Will you include video footage in your videos, or just photos? A: Video footage is very expensive to licence, if I can find footage in the public domain I will try to use it, but a lot of it is hoarded by licencing studies (British Pathe, Periscope films etc). In the future I may be able to afford clips :) Q: Why do you sometimes feature images/screenshots from flight simulators? A: Sometimes there are not a lot of photos available for certain aircraft, so I substitute this with digital images that are as accurate as possible.
I knew about the xb-15's cargo service and eventual scrapping, but I did not know the fuselage was thrown in a nearby swamp. You said and industrial district was next to it, or on top of it, like a building's foundations poured right over it, or is it in any even slightly accessible?
It seems like the most common cause on average for the failure of otherwise potentially excellent airplanes...is a consistent lack of proper engines. This is both annoying and puzzling. Why is that? Is there some kind of common, possibly even sinister, cause to this, or is it really just coincidence? One can't help but wonder... =^x^=
Do you think that you could possibly do a video on the Dornier Do X? Or may be on the Saro Princess? Both are incredible. I highly recommend for anybody curious to search them up. The Do X had 12 engines.
Long ago, I read that it was a principle of aircraft design to either (a) design your new airframe to use an existing, reliable engine, or (b) design your new engine to fit onto a proven airframe. Trying to design both a new airframe and an engine simultaneously was just asking for serious trouble. Which happens a lot, as you observed. But I guess if you are trying to meet very ambitious specifications, you haven’t got a choice.
True. Same story as the AVRO CF-105 Arrow interceptor, never reaching its full potential while waiting for the Orenda Iroquois engine, and the plane getting canceled while still awaiting it...
I do appreciate the effort in research & presentation which you provide. I often find myself learning more about an aircraft even if I already knew of it and this has the effect of me looking further into the aircraft.
FWIW: Rex briefly mentions the _Douglas XB-19's_ problem with the main landing gear cracking taxiways and runways it rolled over. {He talked about it in detail in his video about that aircraft.} I watched that video, and as Rex was talking about that problem it occurred to me: The engineers who designed the _XB-19_ MUST HAVE KNOWN -- or at least SUSPECTED -- how much pressure in PSI {pounds per square inch} that aircraft would apply to the surface it rolled over. FWIW: Near the end of my career in the US Coast Guard, I was qualified as a C-130 Loadmaster {for about a year}. Knowing how much pressure something puts upon the surface it rests upon -- specifically the CARGO COMPARTMENT FLOOR of the aircraft you are transporting it in -- is RATHER IMPORTANT.
Back in those days the world of experimental aircraft was still very much "draw it, build it, see if it works, make alterations as needed." Plus, runways were a lot more primitive then than they are now.
Very true, and that's also one of the reasons the Herk was designed with big high-profile low pressure main landing gear tires. It can operate from much less developed airfields than most transport planes. I spent 20 years on USAF 130's, 14 years in maintenance and then 6 as a flight engineer. I trust that pig like no other plane.
@@crazypetec-130fe7>>> I worked on C-130s in the USN for about 2 1/2 years, then later worked & flew on them in the USCG for about five years {Dropmaster, and Loadmaster for ~1 year}. *I ❤️ BLEEDAIR BLIMPS!!!!* 😊
The XB-15 literally lept off the runway in the video clip! I love your in-depth research and presentation of these forgotten prototypes... my only issue is that after watching your videos, I need to buy books about them to learn more! I bought the Douglas XB-19 book by William Wolf... now I have to search for an XB-15 book!
I've only in the last few months found your channel courtesy of the collaboration of Drach but I wanted to just say bravo. Your videos are fascinating, articulate, well researched and just easy to listen to. Thanks so much and do please carry on!!
Thank you for all your hard work. Please take care of your voice. We would hate to lose you. You are, in my opinion, one of the best content creators for aircraft on UA-cam.
Interesting to observe that the design changed form a tricycle landing gear configuration to a taildragger. At the time, that was called ''Conventional LDG.'' When the Boeing 314 Clipper flew, it had a quartet of Wright R-2600 radials, which gave it the juice to splash around thru tropical lagoons and take off with huge weights of pax and baggage. One wonders why the R-2600s were not mounted on the XB-15? But I guess, by then the XB-15 was a done deal, and Twin Cyclones were prioritized for B-25s, TBFs, A-20s and PBMs [among others.] Thanks for a good video of an aircraft I was ignorant about.
No matter how hard a plane failed, it at least served as lessons valuable to develop other planes. So in a sense, any plane that came after carries the lessons and lectures, the failure and success of all planes that came before it.
They always wanted something like the B-36 as part of their core doctrine, the kinks just weren't worked out by the time Japan attacked. America's whole post-war bomber doctrine leaned into the superbomber idea.
Excellent job, Rex. I remember reading about this one when I was a teenager. The cowling DEFINITELY looks like the nose of a Devastator. A lot was learned from this aircraft.
Looking at this aircraft, and how huge the wing is compared to the fuselage, it’s no wonder Northrop was able to convince the Pentagon that his ideas were sound. It’s not a large leap to take the relatively small fuselage of the XB-15 and just cram it all together inside a slightly thicker wing.
Thank you, Rex! For anyone interested in getting a comprehensive view of media coverage, checkout the link in the description and let us know if you have any questions.
It has a flawless and respectable service life. This was indeed a plane worth remembering. It was the first transcontinental super heavy lifter and, just like the later AN-225, it saved many lives.
I'm a big fan of your channel, which I watch along with Ed Nash's Military Matters and the channels of Mark Felton. I can't believe that the XB-15 still exists, lying in a SWAMP.
Great look at an aircraft that helped advance aviation. The powerplants were a bit underpowered as these were similar to the engines used for the B-17. XB-15 powerplants 4 × 14-cylinder Pratt & Whitney R-1830-11 radial engines, 1000 (take-off) 850 hp at 6,000ft hp (634 kW) each. B-17 powerplants 4 × Wright R-1820-97 "Cyclone" turbosupercharged radial engines, 1,200 hp (895 kW) each. What would have happened if the XB-15 came with the powerplant of the F6F Hellcat? Proposed powerplant upgrade 4 × Pratt & Whitney R-2800-10W Double Wasp 18-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engine, 2,200 hp (1,600 kW) with a two-speed two-stage supercharger and water injection with a compass in the stock. The Double Wasp was first run in 1937. Another option was the powerplant for the XB-19 4 × Wright R-3350-5 Duplex Cyclone 18-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engines, 2,000 hp (1,500 kW) each. What would more powerful engines have affected the range of the XB-15? To me the engine mounts and cowlings look like the wings are trying to give birth to four TBD Devastators. Devastator powerplant 1 × Pratt & Whitney R-1830-64 Twin Wasp 14-cylinder two-row air-cooled radial piston engine, 900 hp (670 kW) with manual on ditching.
I'm surprised it hasn't been salvaged out of that swamp or even been documented. I can't find any photos of the wreck online anywhere. Swamps are usually pretty good at preserving aircraft so it could still be in decent shape, depending on how badly it was broken up before it ended up in there...
@@evanwickstrom5698 unlikely. I did some research, it sank into the swamp, the swamp was filled in and someone has built a shipping container yard on top. Its gone.
Man I would have joined the air force if they had kept up luxury accommodations. [B2 pilot gets out of his seat and opens the door cabin to opulent furnishings and Mozart and a butler standing ready with some hot chamomile tea.]
Thanks for covering one of my favourite aircraft, Rex. For all the flak the design got through the years, it still was an important asset to the 6th Air Force and its rag-tag fleet of airliners and military aircraft stationed in Latin America during WWII. Cheers.
Also, correction about the wing, referring to it as "part of" is a gross understatement. That's a *"major"* part, especially when the design was transferred to the Clipper
Why!, Greetings from Punta Arenas, Chile, the story of the flight to Santiago may be known in certain circles within the air force and among a few historians, but for the most part, I am pretty sure not a lot of people know that over here. Stay awesome Rex's Hangar.
I love this channel, thanks to it I can watch a TV episode length documentary about dozens (hundreds now?) of obscure war planes. Its basically filling the niche TV documentaries like The Great Planes used to fill back in the day.
Another way to look at it is, if the enemy is so far away that you have to bomb them from across the Atlantic, maybe it's not really your problem. (I'm speaking of the scenario where the US didn't have allied nations for airfields).
Thanks for another good video. It's fascinating for me to see local scenery in an international video. One shot showed a school that could be seen from my grand aunts kitchen. The airplane was on the east side of "Boeing Field". Another, which looks like a photo op, is set up with Boeing's original building "The Red Barn" in the background. These old planes with the fat high aspect ratio wings seem like a design dead end. However I've noticed that the Iranian drones have fat wings, which leaves me curious about their flight characteristics. Is the performance of today's subject, high lift and wing load with high drag and low speed, a clue?
How about a video talking about the failed attempts/unknown dual fuselage planes (either Heinkel He 111Z Zwilling, Ca.4, Messerschmitt Bf 109Z twin, Me 309, Me 609, Savoia-Marchetti SM.92, Fouga CM.88 Gemeaux, or a combination of some of the planes listed or planes I didn't list above) These types of planes always fascinated me on how weird yet "Beautiful" they looked, and a dedicated video on the failed attempts of making these types of planes would be pretty interesting
Great video & informative. Word to the wise: pick one measurement system, and stick to it. Quoting every spec in both imperial and metric is confusing, time-consuming, and redundant. I'm a metric guy, but anything historic should list measurements used at the time, i.e. imperial, used throughout North America and Britain, which are the main countries using the aircraft.
I’m starting to lean in your direction. I used to like hearing both but it does clutter up the verbal presentation. Also it’s super easy to look up the equivalents online.
Great video, Rex. You do find the obscure pictures and data that make this interesting even to old airplane geeks like me. On a side note, whenever mention is made of 'the intended engine was to be the Allison 3420' , you just know thing are not going to go well....I must say, that it must have been well designed, because it's empty weight was quite low for a plane of it's size, even taking into account the lighter engines.
Very informative as usual. I really enjoy your channel. Just think how amazing and advanced this plane would have been if the big inline engines originally intended for it had been installed.
Reminds me of the old arcade game 1942 where the final boss on a level was a super bomber along these lines. Not so much "Super fortress" as flying "maginot line".
Grandpappy was a real handsome aircraft from the front. What a wingspan! I wish there were more size comparison images featuring the larger, more obscure aircraft like this. It's hard to get a feel for its dimensions compared to say, the B-29. Or the XB-19 compared to the B-36. It'd be really cool if some rich person funded the creation some non-flying to-scale mockups for defunct aircraft that have long since been scrapped. Call it an art installation.
Hey Rex can you do the b-25j-1 it is my most favorite bomber and I was wondering if you could talk about it and also I love your UA-cam channel. Keep up the great work!
Hello Rex. I regret to say that I have to correct you when you say that the XB-15 was fitted with an autopilot. It was not; it was fitted with a Sperry A-2 gyropilot which is a completely different kettle of fish. A gyropilot will maintain the aileron deflection, pitch and rudder deflection entered into it by use of the control knobs. Taking the heading as an example; if blown off course by a strong wind the gyropilot willl attempt to maintain the heading entered into it, but an autopilot will correct for the off-course distance and take up a new heading to arrive at the original waypoint. Sperry claim the A-5 version (1947, I think) to be the first real autopilot that was capable of correcting heading/pitch/bank. You are right when you claim that Boeing 'essentially hung a flying boat hull' below the XB-15 wing, but it's actually a lot more interesting than that. When Juan Trippe put out a tender for a flying boat capable of crossing the Atlantic, Boeing refused to tender because they were focussed on the XB-15 and derivatives. Boeing salesman Wellwood Beall was busy trying to sell P-26 Peashooters to the Chinese and was, by his own admission, 'more than a little bored at times'. He realised that the XB-15 wing could be used to offset the cost of designing an aircraft from scratch and designed the Model 314 without any input or authorisation from Boeing. His wife, Martha, who was an artist in her own right did the interior fittings and colours. So the Boeing Clipper was literally designed by a husband and wife team. The picture you chose to use of the Model 314 (Boeing Clipper) has an interesting history of its own. Pan American Airways System chose to use this picture in advertising to show the Clipper as being eager to fly. Not so. Captain Harold Gray, PAAS' senior captain, had just screwed up a landing and what you have there is - to quote Captain Jack 'Kelly' Rogers - 'an almightly bounce'. I have my information first hand from an attendee at the lecture where Kelly Rogers made that statement. Kelly Rogers, incidently, was the First Pilot (not 'Captain'!) in G-AGCA Berwick when Churchill flew to the Casablanca conference in 1943. To return to where I started; Boeing were not consistent with their terminology. To engage the gyropilot in the Model 314 you use the Gyropilot Lever. This connects the gyropilot to the control column and rudder pedals to allow the flight crew to ascertain that the gyropilot was behaving correctly. To link gyropilot to the control surfaces, you use the Autopilot Lever which connects the gyropilot to the servos. The picture you have of the cockpit of the XB-15 suggests the setup was the same as 1) Wellwood Beall tried to retain as much of the XB-15's cockpit as possible and 2) I can see the Autopilot Lever in the same place as it is on the Model 314.
Thanks for taking a stand on the War Thunder fiasco, I've been playing the game off and on for too long and it's not even the same game in its' current state, so the anger/protest is totally deserved! As is your uptick of views! Thanks as always for such a wonderfully well-researched video! The design histories of these vehicles are incredibly interesting and it's always a treat to see how designers overcome issues that show up during testing, IF they're ever able to do so.
I’m Building a 60” scale model of this aircraft. It’s fascinating to me that despite my investigations with Boeing’s archives, the Smithsonian and the national Air and Space Museum, there’s not a single detailed drawing or blueprint or even good picture that shows the details of the underside of the fuselage around the bomb bay Area. Guess it’s up to my imagination.
I have to admit that I have always wondered about the XB-15 just what would have happened had they taken the fuselage from the 307 and added the engines from the 317 with Turbochargers. I have to wonder just how high the ceiling would have been. Very long-range recon maybe.
Hold on!... There's a slightly bigger version of that plane designated "y1b-20"...? I looked it up, and despite having larger diameter (or "fatter") fuselage section, it has much cleaner profile and aerodynamic. But like the xb-15, it too has no tail gun Speaking of payload, max cargo of 440,000 lbs translates to 199580.643 metric tons. Had the Allison engines been further developed & continued, it'll solve all the major problems of the xb-15
I have a boy's newspaper of War Weekly detailing this American super bomber being built and compared with a silouette of the 'Whitley-Britain's biggest'.
Great video covering this (these) early big birds. Six engines would have transformed the XB-19, XB-15 and B-29. Russians would have done this early-on. Also, as several large aircraft are reported to have had passage in the wings so the engines could be 'serviced' in flight, one must wonder about the levels of heat, noise, vibration, and fumes one would encounter if actually attempting to perform these 'services'. On the XB-29 crash, it's possible these types of passages were indeed conduits for smoke and fire to travel from wing to fuselage.
I wonder how valuable service tunnels were in relation to the drag penalties incurred by the extremely thick wings needed to accommodate the tunnels. I also question the value of services that could only be performed on the engines from behind. I suppose that after multi-row radials can into use the whole notion of in-flight servicing was scrapped.
I wonder if the superfortress designers had the "not enough armament" jibe ringing in their ears when they decided to find every gun available for their new aircraft design.
Go to ground.news/rex to stay fully informed on breaking news, compare coverage and avoid media bias. Sign up for free or subscribe for unlimited access if you support the mission.
F.A.Q Section
Q: Do you take aircraft requests?
A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:)
Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others?
A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both.
Q: Will you include video footage in your videos, or just photos?
A: Video footage is very expensive to licence, if I can find footage in the public domain I will try to use it, but a lot of it is hoarded by licencing studies (British Pathe, Periscope films etc). In the future I may be able to afford clips :)
Q: Why do you sometimes feature images/screenshots from flight simulators?
A: Sometimes there are not a lot of photos available for certain aircraft, so I substitute this with digital images that are as accurate as possible.
I knew about the xb-15's cargo service and eventual scrapping, but I did not know the fuselage was thrown in a nearby swamp. You said and industrial district was next to it, or on top of it, like a building's foundations poured right over it, or is it in any even slightly accessible?
When watching this for unknown reasons I thought of the Bristol brabazon could you please do a video on it?
It seems like the most common cause on average for the failure of otherwise potentially excellent airplanes...is a consistent lack of proper engines. This is both annoying and puzzling. Why is that? Is there some kind of common, possibly even sinister, cause to this, or is it really just coincidence? One can't help but wonder... =^x^=
This week I scored a nice copy of the 1969 edition of the Observers Book of Aeroplanes. Lots of mid century civilian light aircraft. Nerdgasm!
Do you think that you could possibly do a video on the Dornier Do X? Or may be on the Saro Princess? Both are incredible. I highly recommend for anybody curious to search them up. The Do X had 12 engines.
It seems like a lot of aircraft development can be summed up with "the intended engine was not available."
Long ago, I read that it was a principle of aircraft design to either
(a) design your new airframe to use an existing, reliable engine, or
(b) design your new engine to fit onto a proven airframe.
Trying to design both a new airframe and an engine simultaneously was just asking for serious trouble. Which happens a lot, as you observed. But I guess if you are trying to meet very ambitious specifications, you haven’t got a choice.
True. Same story as the AVRO CF-105 Arrow interceptor, never reaching its full potential while waiting for the Orenda Iroquois engine, and the plane getting canceled while still awaiting it...
Boeing should have just added 2 more engines to the XB15 to get more power !!!
@@wilburfinnigan2142ah, the old saying from Kerbal Space Program: Just add more boosters!
The absolute THICKNESS of it's wings astounds me.
_"THICC"_ 😉
Wow...
you're right. Halfway through &I hadn't noted that yet. Probably not laminar flow wings then.
Somehow reminded me of the Russian TB-3
"Flew with the grace of a startled elephant". Brilliant.
I like Rex's sense of humor: "Simple Yet Ineffective" describing an RAF 30's era bomber.
A legacy of the XB15 was its wings were used for the Boeing 314 flyingboat.
I do appreciate the effort in research & presentation which you provide. I often find myself learning more about an aircraft even if I already knew of it and this has the effect of me looking further into the aircraft.
'The grace of a startled elephant' is going in my personal phrasebook >
FWIW: Rex briefly mentions the _Douglas XB-19's_ problem with the main landing gear cracking taxiways and runways it rolled over. {He talked about it in detail in his video about that aircraft.}
I watched that video, and as Rex was talking about that problem it occurred to me: The engineers who designed the _XB-19_ MUST HAVE KNOWN -- or at least SUSPECTED -- how much pressure in PSI {pounds per square inch} that aircraft would apply to the surface it rolled over.
FWIW: Near the end of my career in the US Coast Guard, I was qualified as a C-130 Loadmaster {for about a year}. Knowing how much pressure something puts upon the surface it rests upon -- specifically the CARGO COMPARTMENT FLOOR of the aircraft you are transporting it in -- is RATHER IMPORTANT.
Back in those days the world of experimental aircraft was still very much "draw it, build it, see if it works, make alterations as needed."
Plus, runways were a lot more primitive then than they are now.
Very true, and that's also one of the reasons the Herk was designed with big high-profile low pressure main landing gear tires. It can operate from much less developed airfields than most transport planes.
I spent 20 years on USAF 130's, 14 years in maintenance and then 6 as a flight engineer. I trust that pig like no other plane.
@@crazypetec-130fe7>>> I worked on C-130s in the USN for about 2 1/2 years, then later worked & flew on them in the USCG for about five years {Dropmaster, and Loadmaster for ~1 year}.
*I ❤️ BLEEDAIR BLIMPS!!!!* 😊
The problem may have been that they overestimated the capacity of the taxi ways and other pavement sections.
I wonder why they chose two massive wheels instead of 6 medium sized wheels.
The XB-15 literally lept off the runway in the video clip! I love your in-depth research and presentation of these forgotten prototypes... my only issue is that after watching your videos, I need to buy books about them to learn more! I bought the Douglas XB-19 book by William Wolf... now I have to search for an XB-15 book!
I've only in the last few months found your channel courtesy of the collaboration of Drach but I wanted to just say bravo.
Your videos are fascinating, articulate, well researched and just easy to listen to. Thanks so much and do please carry on!!
The drach of the skies, we sometimes call him.
Hi Rex just want you to know that I like how informative your videos are. Keep it going
Thank you for all your hard work. Please take care of your voice. We would hate to lose you. You are, in my opinion, one of the best content creators for aircraft on UA-cam.
Interesting to observe that the design changed form a tricycle landing gear configuration to a taildragger. At the time, that was called ''Conventional LDG.''
When the Boeing 314 Clipper flew, it had a quartet of Wright R-2600 radials, which gave it the juice to splash around thru tropical lagoons and take off with huge weights of pax and baggage. One wonders why the R-2600s were not mounted on the XB-15? But I guess, by then the XB-15 was a done deal, and Twin Cyclones were prioritized for B-25s, TBFs, A-20s and PBMs [among others.]
Thanks for a good video of an aircraft I was ignorant about.
No matter how hard a plane failed, it at least served as lessons valuable to develop other planes.
So in a sense, any plane that came after carries the lessons and lectures, the failure and success of all planes that came before it.
".....I like big bombers and i can not lie...."
😁😁😁
These never built bombers are a pretty cool. America almost went down the path of super bombers like the Germans had “super tanks”
America, right now, has 2 of the 3 biggest bombers ever built
And still usses them, regularly
Almost?
I think they actually did go that path…
They always wanted something like the B-36 as part of their core doctrine, the kinks just weren't worked out by the time Japan attacked. America's whole post-war bomber doctrine leaned into the superbomber idea.
I mean the B-36, and the B-52.
Excellent job, Rex. I remember reading about this one when I was a teenager. The cowling DEFINITELY looks like the nose of a Devastator. A lot was learned from this aircraft.
Looking at this aircraft, and how huge the wing is compared to the fuselage, it’s no wonder Northrop was able to convince the Pentagon that his ideas were sound.
It’s not a large leap to take the relatively small fuselage of the XB-15 and just cram it all together inside a slightly thicker wing.
Thank you, Rex! For anyone interested in getting a comprehensive view of media coverage, checkout the link in the description and let us know if you have any questions.
It has a flawless and respectable service life. This was indeed a plane worth remembering. It was the first transcontinental super heavy lifter and, just like the later AN-225, it saved many lives.
I'm a big fan of your channel, which I watch along with Ed Nash's Military Matters and the channels of Mark Felton. I can't believe that the XB-15 still exists, lying in a SWAMP.
Great look at an aircraft that helped advance aviation.
The powerplants were a bit underpowered as these were similar to the engines used for the B-17. XB-15 powerplants 4 × 14-cylinder Pratt & Whitney R-1830-11 radial engines, 1000 (take-off) 850 hp at 6,000ft hp (634 kW) each. B-17 powerplants 4 × Wright R-1820-97 "Cyclone" turbosupercharged radial engines, 1,200 hp (895 kW) each.
What would have happened if the XB-15 came with the powerplant of the F6F Hellcat? Proposed powerplant upgrade 4 × Pratt & Whitney R-2800-10W Double Wasp 18-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engine, 2,200 hp (1,600 kW) with a two-speed two-stage supercharger and water injection with a compass in the stock. The Double Wasp was first run in 1937.
Another option was the powerplant for the XB-19 4 × Wright R-3350-5 Duplex Cyclone 18-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engines, 2,000 hp (1,500 kW) each.
What would more powerful engines have affected the range of the XB-15?
To me the engine mounts and cowlings look like the wings are trying to give birth to four TBD Devastators. Devastator powerplant 1 × Pratt & Whitney R-1830-64 Twin Wasp 14-cylinder two-row air-cooled radial piston engine, 900 hp (670 kW) with manual on ditching.
I'm surprised it hasn't been salvaged out of that swamp or even been documented. I can't find any photos of the wreck online anywhere. Swamps are usually pretty good at preserving aircraft so it could still be in decent shape, depending on how badly it was broken up before it ended up in there...
Maybe one day it’ll be recovered.
@@evanwickstrom5698 unlikely. I did some research, it sank into the swamp, the swamp was filled in and someone has built a shipping container yard on top. Its gone.
@@TheGrifCannon00 Hey, people have recovered planes from more hopeless situations before. But I agree that it’s incredibly unlikely.
Thanks for digging up these nearly forgotten aircraft. The few references seen over the years were frustratingly vague.
Man I would have joined the air force if they had kept up luxury accommodations.
[B2 pilot gets out of his seat and opens the door cabin to opulent furnishings and Mozart and a butler standing ready with some hot chamomile tea.]
Old Grand Pappy thanks for not forgetting him.
Thanks for covering one of my favourite aircraft, Rex.
For all the flak the design got through the years, it still was an important asset to the 6th Air Force and its rag-tag fleet of airliners and military aircraft stationed in Latin America during WWII.
Cheers.
Also, correction about the wing, referring to it as "part of" is a gross understatement. That's a *"major"* part, especially when the design was transferred to the Clipper
Why!, Greetings from Punta Arenas, Chile, the story of the flight to Santiago may be known in certain circles within the air force and among a few historians, but for the most part, I am pretty sure not a lot of people know that over here.
Stay awesome Rex's Hangar.
XC-105? Never lost its experimental status, eh? But nice to see it got some actual use!
Can''t wait till the videos you do on the B-29 and its pre-production stuff.
love your video's, keep them coming!
I love this channel, thanks to it I can watch a TV episode length documentary about dozens (hundreds now?) of obscure war planes. Its basically filling the niche TV documentaries like The Great Planes used to fill back in the day.
But polls show that TV shows about gold mining and gold diggers are what the people want...
Great video Rex…. I’ve enjoyed your content since I just recently came across your channel.
Love the video.
Gotta say, this thing does look very Boeing. The familial similarities with the B-17 are obvious.
Congratulations on the excellent work 👍
Thank you Rex for another great video!
Another way to look at it is, if the enemy is so far away that you have to bomb them from across the Atlantic, maybe it's not really your problem. (I'm speaking of the scenario where the US didn't have allied nations for airfields).
That was certainly the view of the ‘America First’ movement
Thanks for another good video. It's fascinating for me to see local scenery in an international video. One shot showed a school that could be seen from my grand aunts kitchen. The airplane was on the east side of "Boeing Field". Another, which looks like a photo op, is set up with Boeing's original building "The Red Barn" in the background.
These old planes with the fat high aspect ratio wings seem like a design dead end. However I've noticed that the Iranian drones have fat wings, which leaves me curious about their flight characteristics. Is the performance of today's subject, high lift and wing load with high drag and low speed, a clue?
Thank you for another very informative and entertaining video. Well done!
I've heard of these bombers. Like you I had a hard time finding anything as well!!
its great waking up and having breakfast to these videos. creating memories
How about a video talking about the failed attempts/unknown dual fuselage planes (either Heinkel He 111Z Zwilling, Ca.4, Messerschmitt Bf 109Z twin, Me 309, Me 609, Savoia-Marchetti SM.92, Fouga CM.88 Gemeaux, or a combination of some of the planes listed or planes I didn't list above) These types of planes always fascinated me on how weird yet "Beautiful" they looked, and a dedicated video on the failed attempts of making these types of planes would be pretty interesting
I ain't experienced enough
But you either forgot the Twin Mustang
Or it as a success
@@The_Tech_PriestWas a success.
Thanks Rex.
Great video & informative. Word to the wise: pick one measurement system, and stick to it. Quoting every spec in both imperial and metric is confusing, time-consuming, and redundant. I'm a metric guy, but anything historic should list measurements used at the time, i.e. imperial, used throughout North America and Britain, which are the main countries using the aircraft.
I’m starting to lean in your direction. I used to like hearing both but it does clutter up the verbal presentation. Also it’s super easy to look up the equivalents online.
Learned alot from this thanks!
Excellent Production
So I see, those Bug's Bunny cartoon's really aren't, exaggerating too much, on their humorous drawings☺️!!
Great video, Rex. You do find the obscure pictures and data that make this interesting even to old airplane geeks like me. On a side note, whenever mention is made of 'the intended engine was to be the Allison 3420' , you just know thing are not going to go well....I must say, that it must have been well designed, because it's empty weight was quite low for a plane of it's size, even taking into account the lighter engines.
Very informative as usual. I really enjoy your channel. Just think how amazing and advanced this plane would have been if the big inline engines originally intended for it had been installed.
Reminds me of the old arcade game 1942 where the final boss on a level was a super bomber along these lines. Not so much "Super fortress" as flying "maginot line".
Thank you for giving measurements in international system of units!
Units for grown-ups.
Why? Those units weren't even used at the time by the anglo-alliance....
Womp womp, cry about it
Thanks for the video. Well researched and very informative.
Rex nobody produces a better aircraft video than you my friend an congrats on that....Thanks very much.....
Shoe🇺🇸
Another Great video !
I like the way it looks
Grandpappy was a real handsome aircraft from the front. What a wingspan! I wish there were more size comparison images featuring the larger, more obscure aircraft like this. It's hard to get a feel for its dimensions compared to say, the B-29. Or the XB-19 compared to the B-36. It'd be really cool if some rich person funded the creation some non-flying to-scale mockups for defunct aircraft that have long since been scrapped. Call it an art installation.
Hey Rex can you do the b-25j-1 it is my most favorite bomber and I was wondering if you could talk about it and also I love your UA-cam channel. Keep up the great work!
The chord of that wing must have been recognized pretty quickly as being far too draggy. You pretty much don’t see it in later designs.
Hello Rex. I regret to say that I have to correct you when you say that the XB-15 was fitted with an autopilot. It was not; it was fitted with a Sperry A-2 gyropilot which is a completely different kettle of fish. A gyropilot will maintain the aileron deflection, pitch and rudder deflection entered into it by use of the control knobs. Taking the heading as an example; if blown off course by a strong wind the gyropilot willl attempt to maintain the heading entered into it, but an autopilot will correct for the off-course distance and take up a new heading to arrive at the original waypoint. Sperry claim the A-5 version (1947, I think) to be the first real autopilot that was capable of correcting heading/pitch/bank.
You are right when you claim that Boeing 'essentially hung a flying boat hull' below the XB-15 wing, but it's actually a lot more interesting than that. When Juan Trippe put out a tender for a flying boat capable of crossing the Atlantic, Boeing refused to tender because they were focussed on the XB-15 and derivatives. Boeing salesman Wellwood Beall was busy trying to sell P-26 Peashooters to the Chinese and was, by his own admission, 'more than a little bored at times'. He realised that the XB-15 wing could be used to offset the cost of designing an aircraft from scratch and designed the Model 314 without any input or authorisation from Boeing. His wife, Martha, who was an artist in her own right did the interior fittings and colours. So the Boeing Clipper was literally designed by a husband and wife team.
The picture you chose to use of the Model 314 (Boeing Clipper) has an interesting history of its own. Pan American Airways System chose to use this picture in advertising to show the Clipper as being eager to fly. Not so. Captain Harold Gray, PAAS' senior captain, had just screwed up a landing and what you have there is - to quote Captain Jack 'Kelly' Rogers - 'an almightly bounce'. I have my information first hand from an attendee at the lecture where Kelly Rogers made that statement. Kelly Rogers, incidently, was the First Pilot (not 'Captain'!) in G-AGCA Berwick when Churchill flew to the Casablanca conference in 1943.
To return to where I started; Boeing were not consistent with their terminology. To engage the gyropilot in the Model 314 you use the Gyropilot Lever. This connects the gyropilot to the control column and rudder pedals to allow the flight crew to ascertain that the gyropilot was behaving correctly. To link gyropilot to the control surfaces, you use the Autopilot Lever which connects the gyropilot to the servos. The picture you have of the cockpit of the XB-15 suggests the setup was the same as 1) Wellwood Beall tried to retain as much of the XB-15's cockpit as possible and 2) I can see the Autopilot Lever in the same place as it is on the Model 314.
Thank you.
Another great video.
Cheers
Wow- I'd never heard of this one until now!
Thanks for taking a stand on the War Thunder fiasco, I've been playing the game off and on for too long and it's not even the same game in its' current state, so the anger/protest is totally deserved!
As is your uptick of views! Thanks as always for such a wonderfully well-researched video! The design histories of these vehicles are incredibly interesting and it's always a treat to see how designers overcome issues that show up during testing, IF they're ever able to do so.
I’m Building a 60” scale model of this aircraft. It’s fascinating to me that despite my investigations with Boeing’s archives, the Smithsonian and the national Air and Space Museum, there’s not a single detailed drawing or blueprint or even good picture that shows the details of the underside of the fuselage around the bomb bay Area. Guess it’s up to my imagination.
In warthunder is the XB-15, XB-19, & B-17 a usable aircraft.
Marvelous, most enjoyable!😊
The XB-15 is one of my favorite experimental aircraft. It's a shame it wasn't preserved.
They didn't even save the XB-49
Great stuff, man !
Thanks a lot! I'm sorry, I subscribed to your channel for a long time, but I almost never wrote comments. It's time to write.
I think a video about the sud ouest S.O. 8000 would be pretty interesting
Always the quest for engines, rotten compromises and underdelivery cursed these plane designs. Engineering as per usual 😊
With the initial, under-powered engines almost always being Allison's...
super nice vid - I had no idea it was used more than just as an x plane.
10:13 That thing was more advanced in that regard than the $2bn B-2 is today... uncredible!
Another fantasic video..if possible can you do a video on the Clipper at some point?
I have to admit that I have always wondered about the XB-15 just what would have happened had they taken the fuselage from the 307 and added the engines from the 317 with Turbochargers. I have to wonder just how high the ceiling would have been. Very long-range recon maybe.
A great deal of information about the XB15 can be found in the biography of MG C.V.Haynes, A Pilot's Pilot by Gary G. Yerkey, 2018, GK Press.
Hold on!... There's a slightly bigger version of that plane designated "y1b-20"...? I looked it up, and despite having larger diameter (or "fatter") fuselage section, it has much cleaner profile and aerodynamic. But like the xb-15, it too has no tail gun
Speaking of payload, max cargo of 440,000 lbs translates to 199580.643 metric tons. Had the Allison engines been further developed & continued, it'll solve all the major problems of the xb-15
Awesome video!
I have a boy's newspaper of War Weekly detailing this American super bomber being built and compared with a silouette of the 'Whitley-Britain's biggest'.
maybe it was the Douglas a/c as it was said to have Wright Duplex engines and the date was 1940.
Great video covering this (these) early big birds. Six engines would have transformed the XB-19, XB-15 and B-29. Russians would have done this early-on. Also, as several large aircraft are reported to have had passage in the wings so the engines could be 'serviced' in flight, one must wonder about the levels of heat, noise, vibration, and fumes one would encounter if actually attempting to perform these 'services'. On the XB-29 crash, it's possible these types of passages were indeed conduits for smoke and fire to travel from wing to fuselage.
Your vidios always makes my day :))
English please.
@@kiereluurs1243youtube is not an english only website.
In the sponsor section you said March instead of May, lol. otherwise, great video as always!
imagine if it had the original 2600 hp engines
@RexsHangar >>> 👍👍
that boi is thick
Is anyone else seeing DH Mosquito general shape and nose in that XB-15? Who knows, maybe Boeing did inspire DeHavilland to build his "wooden wonder"
Excellent.
ended as a Transport XC-105.
plz more military Transports C-133 Cargomaster, C-124 Globemaster
I wonder how valuable service tunnels were in relation to the drag penalties incurred by the extremely thick wings needed to accommodate the tunnels. I also question the value of services that could only be performed on the engines from behind. I suppose that after multi-row radials can into use the whole notion of in-flight servicing was scrapped.
Jeffries tubes gave access to the Enterprise's warp engines...
The wings remind me of the wings of the model 314.
So,would you consider the xb-15 the precursor to the b-52 bomber?
the xb-15 is the b-17s older jock brother whos hoping for a sports scholarship.
He's Richie Cunningham's brother (Happy Days) who walks up the stairs and is never heard from again.
Thanks
This video had problems loading.
Either it's your site or UA-cam.
Haven't had the same with other sites.
1st class
I always thought the XB-15 was sleeker looking than the XB-19 or B-17.
What's a "metorious" flight?
I wonder if the superfortress designers had the "not enough armament" jibe ringing in their ears when they decided to find every gun available for their new aircraft design.
Is has a very Piaggio p108 vibe to me
bomb