Prototype Aircraft: Beechcraft XA-38 Grizzly

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 22 жов 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 26

  • @Ralphieboy
    @Ralphieboy 2 роки тому +13

    I love finding out about obscure, transitional & experimental aircraft like this one

    • @gusgone4527
      @gusgone4527 2 роки тому +1

      Me too. What's really fascinating is how many of the "revolutionary" developments turn up on other types. Sometimes decades later.

  • @destructionandregeneration
    @destructionandregeneration 2 роки тому +9

    Underrated prototype aircraft of the Second World War

  • @higgs923
    @higgs923 Рік тому +3

    Great video. Subscribed. The XA-36 reminded me of the much later Piper P-48 Enforcer and the Cessna T-37 in that all were built by companies better known for civil aircraft. The T-37 was in active service when I was and it was a great little aircraft. Also, it handled like a Jaguar on the ground. Most fun to fly back then? One of USN squadron VAL-4's OV-10a Broncos. Yeah, I was in VAL-4.

  • @Wideoval73
    @Wideoval73 Рік тому +1

    Good video...very informative.

  • @DavidSmith-ss1cg
    @DavidSmith-ss1cg 2 місяці тому +1

    It really too bad the Beechcraft Corporation didn't allow for use of the more widely used motor from the Corsair(and the P-47 and the B-24) as it was widely distributed(I think it was made in several different factories) and was still a superb engine(over 2000 HP eventually, I think). The Air Force would have liked it if the 75mm cannon was a variant, and the other prototype showcased a more conventional(and versatile) design. But the B-29 project had MASSIVE support in the US Congress - the B-29 program had more funding than the Manhattan project that made the first nukes, in spite of the problems the B-29 had with those very same engines.

  • @justincurtis4699
    @justincurtis4699 8 місяців тому +1

    Hello, with one being lost to time at 4:30, look up the Arizona Commemorative Air Force Museum. I believe it may be the same plane from the photos I've seen and about to see it for myself.

  • @edcox9859
    @edcox9859 2 роки тому +2

    At first glance, this looked like a "parts bin" airplane using pre-existing Model 18 parts. But while there are obvious common design themes, it's a much larger airplane. (67 vs. 47-foot wingspan, for starters)

  • @roum22
    @roum22 2 роки тому +4

    Another interesting and little known type. The Wright R3350 caused considerable problems in its early use in the B29 and later in the Stratocruiser civilian airliner derivative.
    Makes me wonder if the Grizzly had got into production, would they have persisted with it. They were so heavily invested in the B29 there was no going back.

    • @TiptonBros
      @TiptonBros  2 роки тому

      It definitely is a huge what if. From what I read very little negative was said about its performance and handling. I’m sure it would have been popular. I don’t know how long it would have lasted though with such huge leaps in aeronautics at the time. Appreciate the comment!

    • @allangibson2408
      @allangibson2408 2 роки тому +1

      The B-29 had a functional need that couldn’t be replaced. That’s why they dropped 4 Billion dollars on it.

    • @TiptonBros
      @TiptonBros  2 роки тому

      @@allangibson2408 Exactly, unfortunate for the Grizzly though. Appreciate the comment.

  • @lucca8305
    @lucca8305 2 роки тому +1

    legit a WWII version of the A-10

  • @lesizmor9079
    @lesizmor9079 2 роки тому +4

    Imagine one of those engines in a P-47.

  • @badas45
    @badas45 Місяць тому

    I would have named that thing hummingbird

  • @Hopeless_and_Forlorn
    @Hopeless_and_Forlorn 2 роки тому +3

    When a Beech 18 gets into steroids. By the way, it was Eglin Air Field, not Elgin.

    • @TiptonBros
      @TiptonBros  2 роки тому +1

      Didn’t notice the resemblance until now, it looks exactly like a Beech 18. Good catch on Eglin by the way, my mistake. Appreciate the comment!

  • @garyhooper1820
    @garyhooper1820 2 роки тому +4

    Would have been an asset on D Day and the months following,

    • @TiptonBros
      @TiptonBros  2 роки тому +1

      Absolutely, would have been interested for sure. Appreciate the comment!

  • @ComfortsSpecter
    @ComfortsSpecter Рік тому +1

    In 20/20 Hindsight
    Godly Design Absolutely OverPerforming compared to Doctrine contemporaries such as The Famous Nazi Duck
    Though It’s Biggest Issue, Why It Didn’t Receive The Praise it Deserves
    It’s 75MM Is Frankly Pathetic
    I’d Suggest a New 40MM Cannon and Two 20MM Cannons
    And All of a Sudden, Alternate History: The A-10 Is Now the A-10 Grizzly II
    It Would Be That Good

  • @ufoengines
    @ufoengines 2 роки тому +1

    Cool post. Did they think about using jets on this rig?

    • @TiptonBros
      @TiptonBros  2 роки тому

      Thank you! No, unfortunately it was too short lived to see any meaningful development.

    • @ufoengines
      @ufoengines 2 роки тому +2

      @@TiptonBros Bummer! Looks like there would have been room to in stall a jet on the top of the fuselage like this C-119. ua-cam.com/video/HUpoDbTweMo/v-deo.html Bet it would have make it 100 miles / hr faster at 20,000 ft. They had a bunch of designs that used props as well as jets combos in them days.

    • @ufoengines
      @ufoengines 2 роки тому

      @@TiptonBros Dig this ua-cam.com/video/Mff2c-C9NGI/v-deo.html

  • @daplebdatisplebby
    @daplebdatisplebby 2 роки тому +1

    Good climb but terrible control surface

  • @gusgone4527
    @gusgone4527 2 роки тому +2

    Yet another fine but still flawed design that came a little too late to be successful. Over sized, with more defensive armament than necessary. Given it's ground attack niche, it would have been no match for the Mosquitoes FB flown by the RAF. Never mind the Tsetse variant.