5 of the Worst EXPERIMENTAL Planes of World War II | History in the Dark
Рет қаралды 58,556
Күн бұрынExperiments can generally be forgiven for their short comings since they are just that: experiments. But that doesn't mean we can't talk about them. World War II had plenty of experimental planes, and a lot of them were pretty terrible.
00:00 - Intro
01:27 - Brewster XA-32
04:26 - Nakajima G5N Shinzan
08:15 - Kawanishi E15K Shiun
12:01 - Bell YFM-1 Airacuda
17:45 - McDonnell XP-67 Bat or Moonbat
✈️Further Reading✈️
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewste...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajim...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawanis...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_YF...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonne...
✈️Footage Source✈️
• McDonnell XP-67 Moonba...
🟢Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @historyinthedark
🟢Patreon - / darknessthecurse
🟣Discord - / discord
🔴Cameo - www.cameo.com/darknessthecurse
🔵Facebook - / history-in-the-dark-10...
🟢Donations - streamlabs.com/edgerabbit/tip
🔴Reddit - / historyinthedark
🔴Tiktok - / historyinthedark
🟣Instagram - / historyinthedark
🔵Twitter - / darkthecurse
🟣Merch - / @historyinthedark
🟣Twitch - / edgerabbit
Other channels:
🟢Prehistory in the Dark: / @prehistoryinthedark
🟣Gaming and Fanfic Readings: / @darknessthecurse
🟣History Stuff: / @historyinthedark
👔Merch: streamlabs.com/edgerabbit/merch
---
I WRITE BOOKS! YOU CAN FIND THEM HERE:
📚Abyss: www.amazon.com/Abyss-Books-Pr...
📚Pryde: www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08...
📚Abyss on Audible: www.amazon.com/hz/audible/mlp...
#top5 #wwii #plane
@neilfoster814 6 ай бұрын
The XP-67 Moonbat was a really cool looking aircraft for sure. I would like to think that with a couple more years of development it could have been a really good aircraft.
@kristoffermangila 6 ай бұрын
The downsides of the Bat is the engine - James McDonell wanted either a jet or either a Merlin or a V-1710, and that Dutch roll.
@patrickstewart3446 6 ай бұрын
The XP-67 looks like it could’ve taken jet engines. 🤔
@MrCateagle 6 ай бұрын
According to the Osprey book on the XP-67, there were such studies, mainly for mixed-power versions.
@ericbrammer2245 6 ай бұрын
Compare to the Curtiss XF-87, and, yep, it could have, but, it'd need another 3 years, before the NENE-copy arrived in US hands (even though, the Russians some how had That by '46), Until the US crossed the 6000/lb thrust barrier, very, very few of our Jets were really 'capable' that's really, how we were, upon the Entry to the Korean war.
@MrCateagle 6 ай бұрын
@ericbrammer2245 A shame Lockheed's early jet engine work was not followed up on. As it is, the P80's wing clearly derives from that of the L-133.
@selfdo 6 ай бұрын
The Bell X-1 "Airacuda" followed the "Zerstorer" concept, or "Air Destroyer", with independently targetable machine guns or light cannon in each of the nacelles that also housed the pusher-prop engines. It was figured this aircraft would catch and shoot down heavy bombers with its massive firepower. Of course, like the Bf 110 or the Pe 2, it'd not maneuver as well as single-engine "pursuit" aircraft, so likely it'd have been easily picked off by the bombers' fighter escort. Twin-engine designs like the P-38 "Lightning" and the DeHaviland Mosquito worked because they were lightweight and maneuverable.
@patrickradcliffe3837 6 ай бұрын
14:21 yeah, but no. The Allison is water cooled doesn't matter if it's a pusher configuration. What matters is radiators to small to keep the engines cool.
@Transit_Biker 6 ай бұрын
That YFM-1 is a classic example of clever concept without the clever design and engineering to make it work.
@gort8203 6 ай бұрын
"Also, as it approached stall speed, it began to buffet" Good, that is desirable in an airplane, not unusual.
@francisboyle1739 6 ай бұрын
The other problem with the XP-67 was that the Joker could have taken it down with a mahoosive handgun.
@robertdragoff6909 6 ай бұрын
Come and get me, you gruesome son of a …….
@justin3415 6 ай бұрын
The moonbat is so cool,if only Batman was around he could have got it to work haha. Great video and comments thank you
@arkadyarkright1328 6 ай бұрын
Just found this channel, love your presenting style !
@TomPrickVixen 6 ай бұрын
I'd never call a plane "bad" just because it never get the right/good enough engine it supposed to have. And oh boy there are so many promising prototypes (and limited production models) in aviation history that never had the chance, just cuz the planned engine: /never got developed/wasn't even close to the promised power output/got cancelled/never worked properly...
@marckyle5895 6 ай бұрын
3:25 Meanwhile, the prototype NA-73 Mustang rolled out 102 DAYS after it was ordered by the BPC from North American in 1940.
@nbhubbard 6 ай бұрын
I have a model of the aircuda and if it's accurate, the gunners had to sit on the floors of the nacelles with the machine guns between their legs. According to what I've read, the nacelles filled up with smoke when the guns were being fired and there was a hell of a lot of vibration from the engines as well.
@mrjockt 6 ай бұрын
I wouldn’t have included the Bell Airacuda since, unlike the rest of the aircraft on the list, this was actually a pre-war design from the late 1930’s and all development had effectively ceased before the U.S. entered the war.
@davidanderson4091 6 ай бұрын
Some aspects of the XP-67 Moonbat look reminiscent of the Grumman F7F Tigercat
@AnimalsVehiclesAndMore 6 ай бұрын
I thought the XP-67 was actually called the Moonbat, not just simply Bat. Also, the name Airacuda for the YFM-1 is a very unique name. It makes sense because if they called it the Barracuda, that would imply that it'd be in the ocean, not the sky.
@hadial-saadoon2114 6 ай бұрын
Continental killed several experimental designs with this engine during the war.
@manricobianchini5276 6 ай бұрын
The Moonbat looked awesome
@t5ruxlee210 6 ай бұрын
As they say about "politics", being too early is often ten times worse than being too late. lol
@joshuabessire9169 6 ай бұрын
The Bat's little extra thrust from the exhaust makes me want a video on the motorjet and the MiG-13.
@scootergeorge7089 6 ай бұрын
You should have included the Curtiss Wright XC-76 cargo plane. In its very brief first flight, a quick circle of the field, it nearly shook itself apart. On its second flight, it did. Other issues were the center of gravity. It could not fly empty. It had to have ballast weight to fly!
@marckyle5895 6 ай бұрын
And yet Curtiss went bankrupt and shut down! Inconceivable! (laughs like Vizzini)
@warringtonminge4167 6 ай бұрын
Yes there were some horrors but 2 things: 1) the man who never made a mistake never made anything worth shit 2) if you try 100 things then as long as 51/100 work and 49/100 are junk then you're still way ahead of the game, you're in Barnes Wallis territory.
@Quenstar 6 ай бұрын
I have heard that during flight tests of the XP-67 they noticed the reduced radar image of the blended layout, and incorporated that into the SR-71.
@pommunist 6 ай бұрын
I'd be surprised if they flew it for long enough, without it catching fire, to notice
@Jdub6580 6 ай бұрын
I've never heard that before but, knowing that, I can totally see the resemblance. They're both lookers!
@johnosbourn4312 4 ай бұрын
Yeah, no, because the SR-71 was the two seater big brother of the A-12, which was the end result of Lockheed's Archangel design studies done for the CIA.
@slotcarfan 6 ай бұрын
Why do Brewsters aircraft all look like inflatable planes?
@johnosbourn4312 4 ай бұрын
The engines that were fitted to the XP-67 weren't designated as 14-1430, instead, the correct designation was XIV-1430, which means, Experimental Inverted Inline engines, 1,430 Cubic Inches displacement.
@carlossaraiva8213 5 ай бұрын
Damn, The Bat airplane really looked cool! Perhaps somebody could build a new one again with today's technology. Can we interest Tom Cruise?
@ljeffwright 5 ай бұрын
If you absolutely love the Moonbat, then 23:18 you would probably at least really like the Grumman F7F Tigercat. Not quite as cool, but pretty similar looking and a much better plane that actually made production.
@patrickgriffitt6551 3 ай бұрын
And we're used as night fighters in Korea.
@kilo21swp 5 ай бұрын
If the Air-a-Cuda would have had a more conventional engine layout it may have done better as a heavy fighter type. Maybe. Maybe kinda. Maybe not. The one with tricycle gear seems to be a nice looking aircraft in a way.
@jaguarracingus 5 ай бұрын
cool? hell yes and i have to wonder if an inverted 'v' tail section would have helped.
@jessehamm3573 6 ай бұрын
The XA-32, XP-67, and Airacuda all had their problems. But insofar as American experimental designs during the Second World War are concerned, none compare to the sheer atrocity otherwise referred to as the Fisher XP-75 Eagle. A grotesque hybrid combining wings and tail sections of pre-existing designs, the aircraft proved overweight, underpowered, ridiculously unstable and with ungainly control characteristics, culminating in a disastrous series of flight trials in which no less than three of the prototypes crashed.
@tidepoolclipper8657 6 ай бұрын
To think the name Eagle was used for that thing before the F-15.
@brettany_renee_blatchley 6 ай бұрын
Wow, of these, the Bell Airacuda seems to be the worst by far. Most of the others each had one or two issues to mar them, but the Airacuda seemed doomed in many fundamental ways. My thoughts went directly to the Japanese float plane which reminded me of the float racers of that time: there were some good ideas that suffered in execution, whilst the Airacuda simply had bad ideas. I mean, two loaders for the cannons?? With the lifesupport required?? Inability to bail-out without being sliced & diced by even a stopped engine's prop?? Switch the armament to something autoloading and ditch the human risk. Pusher configuration overheated in the air and ground?? THAT was worth the small reduction in drag over the usual tractor configuration??
@sirrliv 6 ай бұрын
I wonder if the Bell Airacuda, while basically useless as a heavy fighter, might have found a better role as a tank buster. Those big cannons would have been excellent in a ground attack role, and its low speed wouldn't have mattered as much. Even with its low carry capacity, some well placed bombs or rockets could still do some damage. Granted, that doesn't do anything about the other technical issues (weight issues aside, they might have been better off with a water-cooled engine in the pusher role). But still, it may have at least given this plane something to do. And it's such a shame that none were preserved; how Darkness feels about the Bat is how I feel about the Airacuda, it's just pure Dieselpunk, I love it!
@joshuabessire9169 6 ай бұрын
Just do the same thing, but B-25. Still, yeah, cool looking plane.
@brunozeigerts6379 6 ай бұрын
Or maybe in a sub hunter role. 37 mm cannons could punch some nice holes in a U-Boat.
@pancudowny 6 ай бұрын
Yes, the Moonbat could've benefited from a few future/modern technological additions... such as engines that didn't require cooling so much. (Turbo-props or jet engines)
@squiremc 6 ай бұрын
As far as the McDonnell XP-67 goes, I'm willing to bet the pilot could have directed the flames away from the fuselage but didn't as he knew a bad plane when he flew one...
@asmundukkelberg8741 5 ай бұрын
I expected to find the italian experimental aircraft Campini Caproni N.1 in this video.
@MrCateagle 6 ай бұрын
IIRC, the triple-tail of the DC-4E inspired a similar feature on the Lockheed Constellation.
@alexhajnal107 6 ай бұрын
Multiple short tails were used instead of a single larger one to allow the larger planes to fit into existing hangers with low roofs/doors.
@allangibson8494 6 ай бұрын
The Avro Manchester used the same layout - the tails turned out to be undersized in both cases…
@HughBond-kx7ly 6 ай бұрын
Brewster didn't go out of aircraft manufacture after the failed attack aircraft .They made F4U corsairs under license.
@christopherandersch1299 6 ай бұрын
And those planes had the tendency to shed their wings in flight, none were sent to combat areas,or out of the us.
@HughBond-kx7ly 6 ай бұрын
What about the Goodyear corsairs?
@dragonweyr44 6 ай бұрын
Have you ever done a list of planes that never left the drawing board?
@MichaelMcKinnon-do5ev 6 ай бұрын
The Shinzan would have probably been better with a single tail similar to the Betty Bomber and more powerful engines. The E-15 looks like it would have made a better land based or Carrier based reconnaissance aircraft. The Moonbat should have had more powerful engines.
@hadial-saadoon2114 6 ай бұрын
Where's the XP-56?
@Rangera-ct1xu 5 ай бұрын
XP-67 would have been good if the USAAC had given it the engine it was designed for. instead it was given an engine that was unreliable and under powered. there have been many great air plane designs that failed because of bad engines.
@jimdavison4077 6 ай бұрын
How is the Me 163 not there?
@BarrettSlimmer 6 ай бұрын
What about He177 a grossly overweight dive bomber with coupled engines or Me210 a plane no one wanted to fly .
@robertwilloughby8050 6 ай бұрын
Now do the worst British jets of the 50's and 60's😅
@earlworley-bd6zy 9 күн бұрын
How many planes have you made?
@CathodeRayNipplez 6 ай бұрын
😀
@animal16365 6 ай бұрын
These designed prototypes are considered (Proof of Concept)
@tidepoolclipper8657 6 ай бұрын
I was going to say make a video on the worst experimental WW1 planes, but your WW1 worst planes video already seems to serve that purpose. Instead, I'd go with worst Interwar planes that didn't have much long term influence with improved designs. Starting examples are Blackburn B-3, FVM J 23, Mitsubishi 1MT, SPCA 30, Canadian Vickers Vista, LACAB GR8, and Renard R31.
@williamsquires3070 6 ай бұрын
Now, if you really want to make a horrible test aircraft, try to see if you can get a railroad locomotive to… fly. On nuclear power. With only 1 gram of Plutonium. Because, of course, it would have to be nuclear powered. Why not? Extended range, and all that. 😆🤣😂
@jackthorton10 6 ай бұрын
Totally safe…… for the train that is
@derekpierkowski7641 6 ай бұрын
😂👍👍👍👍👍
@micodyerski1621 6 ай бұрын
How about a modern, carbon fibre body, turbo-proped, cpu controlled MoonBat! With 20mm Gatling gun.
@cammando2363 6 ай бұрын
Remarkable, no German models.
@jimmydcricket5893 6 ай бұрын
😂😂😂
@redrider7xbilly548 6 ай бұрын
19:40 he says January 6th.... triggered....
@scorpion19142001 5 ай бұрын
The narrator, in my opinion, was over reactive. Lighten up a bit, would have been better. I liked listening and visually of these war machines. Thanks.
@joehamn3145 6 ай бұрын
U left out the German flying wimg😢
@kristoffermangila 6 ай бұрын
Actually, that plane was a decent flyer, but the war situation in Germany precluded further development.
@joehamn3145 6 ай бұрын
@@kristoffermangila it was still a prototype and was hard to keep from crashing on a Sharp turn oh I know allot about it
@thomascooley2749 6 ай бұрын
The best part of that story is how the brothers stole the money to fund their gliders Also it wasn't stealth turns out the TV lies Alot
@joehamn3145 6 ай бұрын
@@thomascooley2749 a better story' is the Germans were going to build a flying wimg bomber that could fly to NY and back and they wanted jet powered 😃
@thomascooley2749 6 ай бұрын
@@joehamn3145 it's turns out drugs made the germans very optimistic and with hindsight its easy to call them delusional
History in the Dark
Рет қаралды 31 М.
Rex's Hangar
Рет қаралды 2,1 МЛН
Caliban Rising - Aviation History
Рет қаралды 66 М.
IHYLS
Рет қаралды 120 М.
History in the Dark
Рет қаралды 40 М.