Thank you! I’m really glad I found your channel! What a great find for a WWII aircraft enthusiast! Great production, information and presentation! Hang in there! I’m excited!

The narration style has to improve. The content is ok but the word-by-word approach is (very) hard to listen to.

I agree . So many things happened in WW 2 were still learning. My grand father fought in McArthur's army in the Philippines. In the infantry. He died in if I remember correctly 1975 when I was 5 or 6 years old. Would like to go there one day.

@@davidelliott5843 it's more personal than professional. I prefer it this way actually.

@@davidelliott5843 Put them on 1.5 speed they sound perfectly normal then.

That is actually not true. It is reclined because in the original prototype the new ACESII seat wouldn't allow the canopy to seal. Basically it's a design goof. Note that the F18/Typhoon/F22/F35/Su57 have a standard reclined (11 degrees) seat. Oh, and an early form of G-suit was available at the end of WW2, and used by some USAAF units.

@@grumblesa10 A foruitous error with beneficial side effects, then.

@@parrotraiser6541 not every mutation is bad.

@@parrotraiser6541 Yeah, the additional G-tolerance was discovered in flight testing...

​@literallya442ndclonetroope5 That's Evolution in a nutshell. 😂

Think your on to something. Allied planes had up right seating position like being in a chair where as the Germans sat with legs straight out to rudder pedals....the rumor was German pilots can withstand greater 'G' forces. Later sports cars & racing cars used the same seating though it was properly used to obtain lower center of gravity & aerodynamics nevertheless it helped with drivers 'G' forces... Not sure if Japan used the leg out stretched seating position. Cheers.

Fieseler and Henschel both made planes in Kassel. I don't think the Russians ever quite got there. The last Horten wing was supposedly found at Rothwesten Kaserne, a Luftwaffe airfield, about 5 miles from Kassel. I was stationed there from 66-69 in Army Security Agency.

​@anvilsvs but this aircraft was made at the Schönefeld factory, outside of berlin.(what is now an airport.)

Unfortunately "Heinkelchen" just lacks that Wonderweapon ring to the Name.

"Mom, can we have He-111?" "We have He-111 at home" He-111 at home:

@@Sseltraeh89 Yes hahaha

The prone Meteor is in Cosford museum. It looks very uncomfortable.

@@philhawley1219 I dont know, its probably better than laying flat like this thing has the pilot situated. More like a motor bike with the Meteor.

The G-Suit stops the blackouts on high G, this is anti G handling (red-outs) :-y

F1 drivers have a similar position in the cockpit

@@dromeiro Indeed they do, but for a different reason. In the case of race cars, it's about making the aerodynamic cross section of the cockpit as small as possible to reduce parasitic drag and make the car go faster for a given amount of power. While the same concept (supine pilot position) could be applied to combat aircraft, the nose would still need to be wide enough to house the radar and other sensors. Still, any reduction in cross sectional area is a plus for a fighter, even if it's in the vertical rather than the horizontal.

Also reduces frontal area. With no motor all you have is a body to get through the air.

Foot pedals like on other aircraft

It's not just about maneuvering. A hard landing could create large g-forces as well, especially on long glider wings. The higher g-limit gives the aircraft better survivability and/or service life, which is desirable, especially when you only got a limited amount of prototypes to work with. It could also have been in preparation for installing engines, bringing the g-limit down to something 'more reasonable' with the extra weight.

@@fonesrphunny7242 aircraft design is about balance and tradeoffs. If you build that much margin into a glider you are making it way too heavy for nothing. Normal or utility category (3.8 or 4.2g respectively) is plenty. This has been demonstrated by 80 years of commercial aircraft design. Nobody is designing aircraft to sustain a 14g landing!!! I spent 4 yrs downloading black boxes from accidents and incidents and analyzing data for one of the largest commercial aircraft mfgs and I can tell you that a 3g landing is brutal - almost a crash and certainly requiring inspection and likely repair. 14g is ridiculous.

Yes.

🎉❤😊 A10 ++++ futurs gammas Blanche moteur forces armées areas Raze Bitton

Torque from counter-rotating engines cancels out. It's not strictly necessary, but makes the aircraft easier to fly and avoids certain problems (like uncontrolled roll when adding power too quickly at low speeds)

170 / 5 * 8 = close enough

Délite Ultras secrets Atomique 40 emes neutrons rapides Lazer area manager falthers raze

I think it was a *Hirth* engine. The company still exists today and still produces aircraft engines. But I really can't say if the engine for this airplane was air or water cooled or even if the picture shown in the video was the right one.

Conventual? Were they liwn by nuns?

You do know that the inclination of the ejector seat in the F-16 was to allow it to fit in the fuselage and not to increase the g tolerance margin?

@@neiloflongbeck5705 How would he know that when its likely everything he's ever read about the airplane said the purpose of the recline is to increase pilot G tolerance. I've never read anything else anywhere either, and I've read a lot of different sources. You must have documentary evidence most of us have not seen. Can you point to it for us?

@@gort8203 I read this over 30 years ago now as a student. So I no longer can recall the source. It could have been anyone of the books on combat aircraft design or the F-16 article in the World Air Power Journal. Or it could have been from looking at the F-16's dimensions and those of the seat. As the height of the ACES II ejection seat is around 130 cm tall (about 4.3 feet) and the cockpit fuselage area is about 4.45 feet tall at the highest point of the canopy (estimated from a cut away drawing), but not all of the fuselage depth is the cockpit (about as foot of the fuselage is below the cockpit floor). Doing the maths means the seat had to be inclined to fit.

@@neiloflongbeck5705 Thanks. Everything I’ve read since I began following the F-16 in the 1970s stated that the seat angle was a deliberate innovation to improve G tolerance, not an opportunistic fix for a design misjudgment. Everything I can find today says the same thing. I would exercise caution deducing intent from the dimensions of the seat and cockpit in the absence of documentary evidence of such intent. Naturally the seat angle did allow a smaller cockpit, but that doesn’t mean the cockpit dimensions were finalized before the seat was. Yes that is possible, but I have to think it much more likely that the cockpit was sized after the seat angle was chosen.

@@gort8203 likewise, nearly every source says that the wing span of the Stirling and Halifax was limited to 100ft due to the size of the hangars on RAF bases and everyone of these sources is wrong. But this has becone the standard narrative but no one knows the origin of this. It's well known that the RAF had hangars with doors that opened to 120feet (the Type C) and that the P.13/36 specification called for the majority of maintenance to be carried out outdoors anywhere in the world. It's also claimed that the Mel262's wing was swept back to increase its high speed performance and its critical Mach number (which it did, the 18 degrees of wing sweep increased the max airspeed increased by a whopping 25 knots over the original straight winged version) instead of to correct the centre of gravity change due to heavier than expected engines. Several other aircraft also had wing sweep, but no one suggests that their swept wings were for high speed flight, examples include the Dunne tailless aircraft, the DH Tiger Moth and the DC-1 to DC-3. Your assumption that you can't work things out from drawings or puctures is extremely poor. This is what the intellitence agencies have doing for centuries. Any scale modeller, like me, who scratch builds buildings from photographs will be able to do this. As I said my measurements were all estimates base of the height of the F-16 being 16 ft. Yes the seat was selected early on in the F-16 programme but instead of using the standard model as was to be used in the A-10 and F-15 in a similar orientation they were forced by the fuselage/canopy design to stick it in at around double the recline angle. The external shape of the F-16 could have been changed if had not been for messing up the area rule and its transonic performance or increasing its size, which would have encroached onto the F-15 and the USAF were unwilling to let that happen. All you need us 1 dimension to scale off for each dimension you need to consider. So for all heights you can scale off the vertical height.

Wasn't that the flying chainsaw?

@@sonofeyeabovealleffoff5462 Yep, and of all of Jack Northrop’s ideas this was most ill advised. Magnesium leading edges to target tailplane structures ,it would work… until it over did things. Early jet yahoo.