Yeah I don't normally think cutaways are funny but I laughed pretty hard at that

@@_Itchy_Bones_ Yeah me too

I could have used some warning before that one - had to stop the video for a bit :)

look at the bones!

Hilarious and completely appropriate!

Me too.

I warned you😂

Q. "Is it behind the aircraft"? A. "It IS the aircraft"!!

British engineering at its finest

But both planes give the pilot a warm butt .. so, great design.

@@RemusKingOfRome The best plane for keeping warm was the Pe-8. Two of its gunner positions were located in the rear of the two inboard engine nacelles. These positions were cramped and smelly, but were also nice and warm.

@@anzaca1 lol .. I'm sure after each mission, these gunners had hearing problems .. what?

No, the Blackburn did have a great field of view.

The Il-102 was an oddball.

In classified documents destroyed before the collapse of the USSR, the military was secretly known as The Fast Army.

In simulated combat tests several bogey pilots were lost in crashes, their final radio transmissions only hysterical guffaws.

So could the Su-17. Unfortunately, in practice, those pods proved to be basically more trouble than they were worth.

@Inu Yasha The Il-40 might disagree, but that whole line of development wasn't adopted so the argument that the Su-25 is the real successor isn't misguided either. Many attempts were made to make a new Sturmovik, but the Su-25 was the one that ended up getting the job.

If helicopters were meta in ww2 it's probably what it would have been

It gets really weird, when one look at IL-20 next to AH-56 Cheyenne. Like you are like that since you are moving towards attack helicopter layout and on the other hand... Cheyenne your WW2 propulsion is at the wrong end of the plane. Did you make a mirroring mistake, when making copies of the blueprints to send to the factory. :) Also what is that weird upward propeller. Who put that on you. Isn't that inconvenient mate. You already have perfectly good wings. Dearie me Cheyenne.... do you have cancer? Do you need a doctor to take that tumor off of you? (While in USA US Army at their angry frenemy. _You see Air Force..... It is technically not airplane and thus we get keep it. Since it has the rotor also. We agreed we get to keep the rotary stuff. Agreement said nothing about us being forbidden to add wings also._ )

Generally speaking typical helicopter designs don't go near 300mph more like 150-200mph, even slower at the beginning of practical helicopter development, during the era this plane was designed, even today military helicopters are around 225-250mph, also generally with a lower range than airplanes for the same amount of fuel, and were relatively unarmored until a lot later. 5:56 speed reference. This truly hideous concept is surprising clever for certain situations especially for the time.

Same here... especially if brightly painted or shiny

The ground targets might die screaming but the enemy pilots will die laughing.

Looks as fearsome as the Short Seamew. The enemy would piss themselves, not with fear, but laughter.

As soon as I saw the thumbnail I thought…Shorts Seamew!

@@daviddou1408 Seamew last flight 57, Il-20 canceled 1959. First where it counts!

Look at the Blackburn "Blackburn" ('I'm a Gnu').

The IL-20 looks like the Soviets stole most of it from that 1950s British carrier based WTF , or maybe the Soviets ‘ let ‘ the British steal the IL-20

I was thinking more along the lines of a grasshopper.

Hillary?

@@choprjock a grasshopper hopper walks into a bar, and the bartender says ‘ we have a cocktail named after you ‘ Grasshopper says ‘ really? You have a cocktail named Marvin ? ‘

Ilyushin Design Bureau: Tell you what, I'll take a full load of fuel and find out. Won't go to Switzerland, pinky promise.

Yeah, even straight out of the back could be controlled somewhat; it seems too, like they could have just dropped all sorts of crap out of the back to get stuck in or damage the prop of the other planes and obscure sight too.

pilots are too busy to do that as well the russian idea of dropping air mines is more feasible

Fairey's solution, in particular for carriers where centre thrust was a bonus, was a series of designs culminating in the Gannet. Many of the early ones had dual Merlins mounted behind or at least partly behind the pilot rather than under the pilot, resulting in a plane with a much less deep fuselage. There were about a dozen or so such designs. My father has my book, though, so I can't remember all the details. Many were just paper designs feeling towards the Gannet. Two engines were preferred for two reasons - redundancy when over the sea, and fuel efficiency for longer loiter times. Submarines aren't exactly nippy so one engine would have been enough to chase one, although they might have given the Short Seamew a run for its money.

Well at least the Il-20 was not killing its own officers.

Considering its success, I think it met the rule in an inverse manner, didn't look good, wasn't good.

Then why so many sleek, needle shaped jets were rather bad?

@@mladenmatosevic4591 Like the Douglas X-3, perhaps? Underpowered due to the intended engines not being ready.

@@Markle2k For example F-104 or MiG-23.

@@mladenmatosevic4591 Those aren't good examples of "rather bad" aircraft.

Fairey had a go at making planes like it before it came up with the unparalleled beauty that was the Gannet.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/br1_l7Ziq9WwY4E.html

In Russia earth peels away from victorious Soviet warriorbird.

Good point... but they're Russian

@@JTA1961 Did I miss something here?

It is underpowered, specially for modern standards. Make one with a turboprop and now we're talking. Super tucano?

Pretty sure that's an oil cooler

@@dubsy1026 No, the oil cooler is a box shape centerline under the fuselage.

@@StromBugSlayer Well then it might be water or an air intake. The cut is on both sides, and I think you're really jumping to a conclusion in assuming it's for a big gun. I see no reason why a mount for a gun would have a large exposed open area in the wing root like that does.

& shave...

Probably why they angled the cannons down, if you dive it may not stop.

honestly most of the weight distribution seems the same as for something like the il-10... after all you've only actually moved the pilot forwards, nothing else has really changed. In addition to that, you can always move the wings forward, or make the control surfaces bigger, if it was a real problem. Definitely better to have a CoM too far forward than too far back, so you won't get a statically unstable aircraft :P

@@matthewturnock8725 The way I am seeing it is the armored bathtub is less spread out since the engine and crew are concentrated ahead of the wing, instead of the weight being spread from the nose to aft of the wing in the earlier planes, or at least over the wing.

@@300guy sure but you've got to bear in mind what forces are being applied to the aircraft in flight... namely weight and lift. As long as you move the lift forward (ie the wings) to compensate for the CoM being moved forward then it's all good. A similar scenario (but the other way around) is actually why you see slightly swept wings on certain later versions of the IL2s (think the IL2-M). Due to design changes (I can't remember the specifics rn) between the original IL2 and the M, the CoM moved backwards compared to the original design, but of course moving the location of the whole wing root is a bit tricky, so to apply more lift force to the rear the solution is to give the wings a slight sweep. I hope I'm making myself clear, it's a bit hard to explain stuff like this without a nice diagram :P