A 109, a P51 and an F4U walk into a bar ... just kidding it was a motel room, and the stuff they did there led to THIS.
@messier82ac10 ай бұрын
I usually hate the comments saying "it's a blend of these planes", but this is funny
@aLbInO-dk7m10 ай бұрын
Hola Messier👋👋👋👋
@aLbInO-dk7m10 ай бұрын
@@messier82acwhy u got the best vids on KZfaq lol Keep it up Also how is college going rn
@Terrados133710 ай бұрын
@@messier82ac I did not mean to criticize your design choices, they make sense! There are only so many ways to peel an egg, convergent evolution and all that, when using the power of hindsight, there are bound to be similarities. Great video!
@Cyanfox300610 ай бұрын
@@messier82acTo be honest... Looks like Regia Aeronautica developed British Wyvern. Love it, especially nose mounted guns
@user-ev9cn2tz5k10 ай бұрын
This man is slowly starting his own Air Force
@Meyer-gp7nq10 ай бұрын
Not very slowly
@judet299210 ай бұрын
Slowly?
@subjectc750510 ай бұрын
A questionable but formidable air force at that😂
@Timmysyt10 ай бұрын
@@subjectc7505Yep
@ghostdog042410 ай бұрын
He is the Air Force
@yuuzyerbrejn960310 ай бұрын
When Rex Beisel designed the Corsair they used the inverted gull wing to provide for shortening the landing gear while still maintaining prop clearance. Then they found that they had gained a measure of aerodynamic relief by having the junction of the wing be 90 degrees to the angle of the fuselage side, thus enhancing the speed. Seems to me that any superprop being designed today would make use of that knowledge, as you did. Nice aircraft!
@princesofthepower36909 ай бұрын
Not really there are other more effective ways of enhancing speed without utilising inverted gull wings, as gull wings tended to lack stability especially in a stall. There’s a reason all super props didn’t use gull-wings.
@kdrapertrucker9 ай бұрын
But hey did it in the Corsair to keep the landing gear legs shorter and stronger while giving the 18 foot prop clearance.
@kdrapertrucker9 ай бұрын
Would rather have a radial as they do not have the weakness of coolant lines and radiators.
@yuuzyerbrejn96039 ай бұрын
@@kdrapertrucker agreed! I could be misremembering, but I think the Corsairs ultimately bested the Mustangs in the Football War
@DrewLSsix9 ай бұрын
@kdrapertrucker they do have the weakness of ultimately less performance and reliability though.
@williamtaftt10 ай бұрын
not sure if its just because of the livery, but i cant stop seeing a westland wyvern that went on a diet
@PopeRocket9 ай бұрын
ha ha turboprop go phwēēēēēēēēēēēē
@risingsun959510 ай бұрын
Another automation would be automatic flaps, like what the Kawanishi N1K2 had. It used a simple mercury switch that extended flaps automatically as pilots slowed down in turns to prevent the aircraft from stalling in a dogfight. It was more tempermental to fly but it could keep up with even the best of the late-war US aircraft such as the P-51, F4U, and the F6F.
@Barstool_cub_driver9 ай бұрын
That’s interesting. Didn’t know that.
@MrWillNeedham9 ай бұрын
Quite a few German aircraft, including the 109, had automatic slats that served a similar purpose. A lot of pilots disliked them, even going as far as to fix them permanently in the closed position. The main problem was that their operation wasn't always predictable or desirable. When deployed, they increased the lift but also the drag. This slowed the plane down even more, which is usually the last thing you want in a dogfight.
@risingsun95959 ай бұрын
@@MrWillNeedham The 109 had automatic slats, but the N1K2 had automatic *flaps*. When necessary, N1K2 pilots could override the flaps
@zachb98569 ай бұрын
@@risingsun9595 slats and flaps serve the same purpose, but I think flaps would have a more pronounced effect on lift and drag in a dogfight, since flaps affect the Coefficient of lift/AoA curve more drastically
@MrWillNeedham9 ай бұрын
@@risingsun9595 I'm fully aware the N1K2 had automatic flaps rather than slats, but as I said previously - they served a similar purpose. Automatically deploying lift-enhancement devices was not a unique feature and they were in widespread combat use long before the N1K2 ever flew. The reason they weren't more popular is because speed is life in a dogfight. It's far better to preserve your energy than to turn slightly tighter but be left a sitting duck. Being able to manually override them is all well and good, but if you're having to do that more often than not then it's just extra work for the pilot.
@autisticaeronaut10 ай бұрын
You should do a dogfight competition between various planes you've made. Love the content, glad I could be here so early!
@Seabee20310 ай бұрын
Kinda like a Growling Sidewinder style dogfight series
@karelpgbr10 ай бұрын
@@Seabee203 Man I love Growling Sidewinder
@WildmanTrading10 ай бұрын
He made a hypergood dogfighter. Nothing else stands a chance.
@steveleopard67619 ай бұрын
@@WildmanTradingwhat about another hypergood dog fighter
@gj12345678999999 ай бұрын
The number one thing that dictates all planes is the engine. What engine you choose will change the shape of the whole plane.
@BARelement9 ай бұрын
8:28 the Spitfire, Mustang, & Bf 109 are all supercharged (either 1 stage, 2 stage, 2 speed, etc) not turbo charged. That would be the Thunderbolt, Lightnings, and a few experimental planes (it was rare in that period outside of prototype).
@OR569 ай бұрын
“My name is Monsoon, of the Winds of Destruction.” -This plane if it could talk.
@sofiawaqasi594710 ай бұрын
Almost looks like a mash between a Ta-152 and the Corsair with maybe a bit of VG-33
@bradleyrobinson809510 ай бұрын
why are you not wrong
@-Euan-10 ай бұрын
+ a bit of the westland wyvern
@sockenpuppe105710 ай бұрын
a little bit HE 112
@kpjammerwolf3309 ай бұрын
fictionally, it looks like the Lautern Tulip from The Sky Crawlers
@defuncthusky66499 ай бұрын
Vg33 is a damn pretty aircraft
@johntillman60689 ай бұрын
For survivability, you need not only armor and self-sealing gas tanks, but a radial engine. Add a gull wing to a Bearcat, and you're good to go. A land-based variant without folding wings, beefed up landing gear and tailhook would have been even lighter and faster. Four 20mms was a F8F common armament.
@jurgenh.79807 ай бұрын
You do not necesarily need a radial for increased survivability. Sure. It takes away some vital systems like a water cooling bur you also add a bigger target and bigger frontal surface. Sure. It was kinda the weakness of the P51 if you wanna call it that. But it is not really s design flaw. Its more a design choice. Also. Sure. As said it gives you a bit more survivability. Bit how often will you get critical hits as a pure fighter without getting shot down. A radial gives you more advantages in a multi-role enviroment where speed is a bit less important and raw strenght and flak/light guns are more of a problem.
@Mavve6910 ай бұрын
Would be cool if you built a strategic/supersonic bomber, like those during the Cold War before ICBM’s were really a thing.
@ArneChristianRosenfeldt9 ай бұрын
B-1A
@th3lunchb0x9 ай бұрын
This is a very sleek and interesting design. The biggest doubt I have about it is the turbo. Using an unintercooled turbo set up would limit the gas quality you could use and reduce top end performance because of increased risk of knock. There is no way this thing could be intercooled the way the P47 and P38 are. The only reason the tail booms of the P-38 are so skinny is because the cockpit was located in between them. The P47 got its massive size not just from the Radial engine (which it shared with the much slimmer Corsair and Hellcat) but from all of the massive intake and exhaust plumbing from the engine to the turbo and intercooler. Also, you're aircraft features open exhaust like a supercharged inverted V-12 of a Bf-109, but with a turbo this would be impractical/impossible because you would have needed to plumb all 12 exhaust tubes down to one to feed the turbo and back to the engine bay, split into 6 pipes on each side and routed back to the front of the aircraft. This would all be easily rectified with a Two-stage supercharged Merlin the P-51D was equipped with although it would not have the advantage of the constant level of boost provided by the turbo wastegates.
@qzg785710 ай бұрын
You should really change the way wheels claps closes. Now they act as a HUGE airbreaks. Landing gear produce a lot of drag as it is
@nikoloso10 ай бұрын
Might be intended like how f4u corsair landing gear doubled as air brakes
@Generic_Name_1-110 ай бұрын
Eh taking off and landing doesn't really matter how much drag you're producing. You could also make it so the doors close when the gear is fully extended. Plus that design could double as airbrakes like the Corsair as mentioned by the other commenter.
@judet299210 ай бұрын
The F-111 had a main landing gear hatch which was a literally also the airbrake.
@BradleyGibbs9 ай бұрын
Have a look at the Corsair.
@MrWillNeedham9 ай бұрын
@@Generic_Name_1-1 Drag matters a lot during take off and initial climb out. That's why the flaps are not extended fully and why the gear is retracted as soon as possible. Turning the wheel covers 90° would improve performance in this critical phase of flight, for no downside. Propeller aircraft already have a huge and easily controllable airbrake in the form of the propeller itself. Adjust the pitch to fully fine at low throttle and the drag increase is huge. This is why most WW2 aircraft didn't need airbrakes unless they were designed for dive bombing. Even if you did want to add an additional airbrake, you'd want to be able to control it independently from the landing gear. There's no good reason to deliberately design high-drag landing gear.
@frostgd804010 ай бұрын
This really reminds me of the late war Focke-Wulf designs like the Fw-190d9 and Ta-152 crossed with a P-51. Great video and thinking!
@kingghidorah81069 ай бұрын
the side view of the p100 is amazing
@pani_377610 ай бұрын
Can you give us some specifications of the plane i.e. top speed, max altitude, rate of climb, turn rate, etc. so we can compare it to some actual WW2 designs?
@appa6099 ай бұрын
No because 1. the game is low fidelity 2. hid design is no better than historical fighters
@thelaughinghyenas84659 ай бұрын
@@appa609 , I actually had the same question. I want it to use that fighter in a story, so the plane not actually being better than real designs isn't an issue because it's an Alternative History story. In this universe, there is a Spitfire but not a Mustang. It would have fit perfectly as the builders have access to German, British and American technology plus a few others.
@williamzk90837 ай бұрын
Given the 36L 1800hp engine this engine is in the class of the Jumo 213 and Griffon which makes it a late 1943 or 1944 engine. The Griffon IIB did start appearing in 1942 at 1735hp restricted by a simple supercharger.
@wknogl22109 ай бұрын
Wonder if the radiators in the wings will end up being the Achilles heel of this plane, like it is on the HE-100
@danraymond12539 ай бұрын
Well the He-100 didn't have radiators, it just had cooling lines on the leading edge of the wings, and that was it's Achille's Heel. Because it is much easier and more likely to take damage along the width of the wings when you're being shot at, it would almost certainly get punctured at a higher rate. However, these radiators are very close to the fuselage, and the main coolant radiator is under the fuselage. This makes it much hard to hit. The spitfire had radiators on it's wing that were even further out than these, and it didn't seem to be a particular issue. Plus, many WWII fighters had their oil cooler in the wing roots. Others had them somewhere in the engine cowling, like the Thunderbolt and Hellcat that had them slung under the engine where they're only marginally better protected. The Fw-190 had an annular ring Infront of the radial engine for better aerodynamics, though this likely left it a little more vulnerable than other planes. So no matter where you put it, it was always pretty vulnerable. It just wouldn't be smart to put it (almost) across the entire width of the wings, like the He-100 did.
@mfree802869 ай бұрын
I think you'd run into compressibility problems before anything else. Fully articulated control surfaces would be the way to go here, as well as differential spoilers to augment ailerons. Only other thing I'd do different to try out would be to straighten the wing, sweep it slightly, and get it up where the center of action for the ailerons is close to or conjugate with the longitudinal CG, and then try and get the tail surfaces neutralized so there's no adverse pitch/yaw from a high roll rate. Consider the A4 Skyhawk, blisteringly fast roll rate but if you did it's 720 degrees/second for more than two rotations you were on the bare edge of departing controlled flight from adverse pitch.
@jinngeechia97159 ай бұрын
This resembles the Sky Crawlers Skyly J2 that is flown by The Teacher! The regular variant seen in the anime is the Skyly D. Looks similar to this design as well.
@carsonyoder732010 ай бұрын
Any day now we will have this masterpiece of a game
@demoman010 ай бұрын
Soon™
@_Peperek10 ай бұрын
That's what they said long time ago 😂 im shaking i cant wait
@thedissi302110 ай бұрын
yeah, any day between now and April 21st, 2134
@carsonyoder732010 ай бұрын
@@_Peperek the steam page is open and they said 2023 so hopefully
@messier82ac10 ай бұрын
If only you knew
@opatrick19619 ай бұрын
You're basically designing a gull winged P51H with a griffon engine and gull wings. The Merlin was 27L and capable of 2.200hp. The Griffon was 37L and potentially much more power. It was used with dual 3 blade props, contra rotating. If you planned to use a P47 style Turbocharger the fuselage would no doubt have to be larger. You have a great thing here, but I think it would have to look different to fit everything in. Not a bad idea here, a big V12 with a mustang style cooling setup, combined with Corsair wings, and a thunderbolt style forced induction system. It would work, but would look somewhat different. Even the griffon would require a larger nose. I still think my first sentence applies. Martin Baker MB5 comes to mind.
@TheWizardGamez9 ай бұрын
so its just a TA-152
@vincenzobrasiello754010 ай бұрын
and after a long day ill sleep another quiet night because the night king messier is still uploading
@AlexHunter25256 ай бұрын
I LOVE this content concept. Now do tanks, trucks, ships, subs, rifles, smgs, mgs, pistols, armor, uniforms, boots, food and whatever else i cant think of!
@KenMochii10 ай бұрын
As much as cool as jet fighters are, prop fighters are more interesting to me, thanks for making one!
@thomasrufin267310 ай бұрын
After the launch of Flyout, can you make a video about what this game simulates and what it doesn't do. For example, does it simulate vortex,tire wear, laminar flow...
@mrfox807910 ай бұрын
Man your videos are so instructive! I learn so much about basic aerodynamic and airplane making just by watching you, thanks for this quality content.
@sithknight77408 ай бұрын
I wish there was an RTS game that allowed to you to import builds from this, Sprocket and whatever the Naval equivalent would be to essentially build your own faction from the ground up. Your units would be separated into different tech levels based on what they have, something more similar to a Sopwith Camel or an Interwar monoplane would be placed in Tech 1, while stuff similar to an F-14 would be tech 4 or something.
@remkirkthegamer11574 ай бұрын
That sounds like a nightmare to code. It'd be a lot easier to have a Flyout/Sprocket/NavalArt designer built into the game, and then assign tech levels to the different parts. Until someone makes a game like that, From The Depths should scratch a somewhat similar itch. You can build tanks, aircraft, and ships from the ground-up in it, although there aren't any tech levels.
@user-su1my6om4u10 ай бұрын
This looks sick! Keep up the good work.
@jorge859610 ай бұрын
Are there multi-stage variable speed supercharging systems in flyout? I feel like it would suit this plane better than the turbo, mainly because turbocharging systems back in the 40s were enormous and hard to fit into a compact fighter like this. Think of how big the P-38 and P-47 were compared to their contemporaries
@TheSDB1310 ай бұрын
Plus I don't think a V12 ever got mated with a turbocharger, only radials afaik
@Tobias-wb6kd10 ай бұрын
@@TheSDB13 The P-38 had 2 Allison V-12 engines with turbochargers.
@TheSDB1310 ай бұрын
@@Tobias-wb6kd Forgot about that, thanks for the info, the superprop looks too small then XD
@makky-kat37199 ай бұрын
Yeah I was thinking that too, I just assumed he said "turbocharger" but meant "supercharger" since the plane doesn't really have room for a turbo as designed, and those exhausts also aren't what the ones on a turbocharged engine would look like. A high performance interceptor like this and you'd probably want to use a supercharger anyway, unless it's the P-38 we're talking about.
@egoalter12769 ай бұрын
@@makky-kat3719 Also, considering these engines rarely breached 3k RPM, turbos would struggle to give reasonable boost.
@michaelglasson21719 ай бұрын
One thing people had to consider during WWII was cost and manufacture time. They could have made better designs but probably couldn't have produced them on the scale needed.
@adorimable96907 ай бұрын
i like the inverted V12, the idea of using it to get better forward visibility is great
@Zytharr0310 ай бұрын
I would love to see something like the bf109 but making it improved where it main weaknesses were
@PaulieLDP10 ай бұрын
Germany tried many times and failed. In the end it wasn't worth them replacing the 109 itself.
@TheLtVoss10 ай бұрын
@@PaulieLDPwell Germanys economy wasn't great at the time and beside the modifications they did between the models were kinda the maximum they could do without redesigning major parts of the plane so that production of fighters planes could continue if you already strugel too produce sufficient numbers starting almost completely new isn't gona help even if the plane would have been slightly better And in my opinion the 109 was OK many of its problems came form it's route as racing plane that is a ok foundation for a fighter plane but it is a bad choice compared too a purpose developed plane like the fw 190 there many Design choices were made that the flaws of the 109 addressed(like the narrow landing gear or pilot posture, maintainability, and same more)
@katfox20049 ай бұрын
thats what the bf-309 was
@mikehawk69189 ай бұрын
The vast majority of ww2 fighters used superchargers, not turbochargers. Turbochargers were extremely heavy and costly to build, hence why the P-47 was the heaviest and most expensive US fighter of WW2. You also said that being lighter was always an advantage, which was maybe correct in the beginning of the war, but as the FW-190 proved, heavier planes had a much easier time diving and consequently climbing from a dive (also known as the "boom and zoom"), which made them virtually untouchable to the lighter aircraft, which could turn on a dime but simply could not follow the heavier aircraft. In fact, when the FW-190 was first introduced, the British had no answer for it, and they had to rush new clipped wing spitfires into production as a stopgap, and later rushed the typhoon fighters into production with disastrous consequences (the planes literally fell apart mid flight over the English channel). I suggest your read combat trials of spitfire vs P-47. As the pilots describe it, the spitfire could turn and gain the tail of the p-47 easily, but the p-47 could disengage and engage with boom and zoom at will, which meant the spitfire was essentially a sitting duck.
@seanteunissen31079 ай бұрын
This has elements from a lot of planes. The outline mostly reminds me of the Ta-152. The total burst mass (relevant in a head-on or intercept situation) might be a little on the low side with only two nose-mounted cannons
@danapicray90409 ай бұрын
You make the fuselage smaller then add turbocharged and three 20mm cannons. One of the reasons the p47 fuselage was fat throughout was the turbo also the turbos was the reason for twin booms on the P38.
@RNG_JUC9 ай бұрын
I do not know if Flyout models things like self sealing fuel tanks or material properties (in terms of armor), but i think there might be a core point missed about air combat. Survivablilty/defensive capabilities (as the fourth point). If not, this is an amazing sales pitch
@RadiantCataclysm10 ай бұрын
Wow, this video was great, I think you did a great job on explaining everything about why you are doing what you are doing, and how it effects the plane, I also just think the plane itself was incredible, it really does look like a person just found parts of p-51s and 109s and just kind of put them together into a really cool plane.
@ed60919 ай бұрын
Hey aerospace engineering student here, great video! I liked the level of detail you put in, unfortunately you didn’t take about the wing profiles (maybe it due to software limitations). It’s a very cool design, I especially liked the Corsair-like wings because I didn’t know they improved visibility! If I may add something to improve a bit the design would be to add flaps and slats if possible (latter are very important for low speed flight envelops). Also you might want to change the wing shape (seen from above) to an elliptical shape, similar to the one on the spitfire. It’s the absolute best shape for aero efficiency and wasn’t used much because of how hard it was to build. And you could tilt (rotation from above) the vertical stabiliser a bit to counter gyroscopic effect from the torque generated by the engine.
@reinbeers53229 ай бұрын
Ellyptical wings were shown in postwar testing to offer almost no advantages over a simple trapezoidal wing, which is what the Spitfire's successor, the Spiteful used. They're also stupidly expensive to make and after the Spitfire and P-47, they disappeared completely.
@ed60919 ай бұрын
@@reinbeers5322 on a strictly theoretical basis an elliptical distribution is the best you can get, in reality the advantage as you pointed out is not worth it but I wanted to point that out anyways but the addition of slats and flaps is a must.
@reinbeers53229 ай бұрын
@@ed6091 The issue is that once theory met reality, it didn't hold up at all. IIRC it was just 5% better in just one efficiency metric. And that was for a true ellipsis, while the spitfire didn't have one and had a fair amount of wing twist to combat the nasty tip stalls it otherwise would have. As for flaps and slats, they are essential yeah. Surprised more nations and manufacturers didn't use leading edge slats in WW2.
@ed60919 ай бұрын
@@reinbeers5322 actually from the theory we expected such a small gains in efficiency. Had to look up my aerodynamics notes for this, Cd depends on the Oswald factor, inside this there’s a value that can range from 0 (elliptical) to 0.18 (triangular wing), for a rectangular wing it should be around 0.02 so almost negligible. I believe this was learnt after the experiments you mentioned (delta vs taper ratio graph)
@reinbeers53229 ай бұрын
@@ed6091 Yeah, it was that exact efficiency factor, I had forgotten the name. I'm not an engineer, just an enthusiast. Or in other words, a massive nerd.
Great work on both the plane AND the video. A very informative, detailed, formidable, and gorgeous build. 10/10
@auto_revolt9 ай бұрын
So, in a very recent video by the Imperial War Museum they talked about the development of armament on the spitfire. From that I learnt that pilots sometimes used the machine guns to "spray rounds" and only used the cannons when they were more confident of a hit because of the slower rate of fire. Apparently four cannon Spitfires were trialled but the pilots preferred two cannons. So I guess I'm saying that assuming more cannons = better isn't necessarily correct
@meerkat58189 ай бұрын
As a long-time player of Simpleplanes, which recently received it's last ever update and is essentially forgotten about now, this game looks to be the perfect spiritual successor. Looking forward to the early access release!
@HelmutGaming9 ай бұрын
It has some similitudes in design to the BV-155B-1 and the Ta-152 H1
@egocyclic7 ай бұрын
I saw that someone had already mentioned the fact that a turbo-supercharger necessarily needs to duct the engine exhaust to a turbine to drive a supercharger. Clearly the exhaust stacks of this 3D design are not collected and ducted to do that. However, there are a lot more issues with this design. There's no intercooler, nor mention of a first-stage mechanical supercharger (which P-38's V-1710 and the P-47's R-2800 engines both had in addition to the turbo-supercharger). I'm not sure where the storage for 900 rounds/510-lbs of 20mm ammunition (not including belt links) is supposed to be, but that's trivial compared to the fact that the space left for fuel tanks is very limited. And you can't just pretend that you could put a bunch of fuel in the tail end, because that would totally unbalance the aircraft's CG. It was fun little design exercise, but it's not much more realistic than Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Gundam mechs, or Reaganomics.
@wobbleduck9 ай бұрын
Ed Heinemann once said that the best way to make an aircraft is to design it around the engine you want to use. Radials were popular during the war for a reason because they had a higher power/weight offering compared to V-12's, and some of the later R-2800's had similar superchargers to the Merlin which gave them good performance at altitude. This also meant no radiators and coolant on board to cut back on weight even more. Additionally, gun convergence will still be a factor, although not as much as wing mounted guns. Height over bore from the sights will still play into the accuracy of the guns, and there's something to be said about a wider shot pattern when you aren't using targeting computers to give you a gun solution. Nose mounted guns also severely cut back on your ability to carry ammunition which also adds complexity for the maintainers every time they need to tear into something under the cowling. But, this is purely about performance and not logistics. I'm interested to see how this design will do. I must admit though, it looks really good.
@CyberneticArgumentCreator4 күн бұрын
You're not describing convergence, you're describing something like windage.
@wobbleduck3 күн бұрын
@@CyberneticArgumentCreator windage is an environmental factor, convergence is a mechanical factor related to how the guns are mounted. Regardless if it's nose mounted or wing mounted guns, your bullets will need to be zeroed at a set distance calibrated to the sight. Which is why I brought up hight over bore being a factor with nose mounted guns.
@kdrapertrucker9 ай бұрын
They did this for real, the reasult was the F8F Bearcat. Meant to replace the FM wildcat on smaller carriers. It ended up performing more like a Jet fighter and was used for Jet conversion in the Marine corps and U.S. navy for a few years.
@irritatorgoner108710 ай бұрын
dear god, i love absolutely everything about this aircraft. it's almost a combination of the mustang, the bf 109 with the wing design of the b7m2, although i've finding strange the use of a inverted v engine instead a regular one, but since this problably not a German engine (wich will burn as the sun) and i'm anyone for talk bullshit just gonna say that the design it's a true dream of aviation. i was also thinking that with the guns in the nose u can have a lot of setups in the wing such bombs, rockets and addition guns like the 109 and the 190. Let's make with a radial engine next time, or not who i am to say?
@apersondoingthings56899 ай бұрын
What would be funny is if the plane had the wasp engine on the F4U-4 Corsair. The thing would have the climb rate of an American that saw a cheese burger at the top of a flight of stairs. And before anyone gets mad, I am from the USA
@wbertie26049 ай бұрын
The most important factor is that the operational requirement to which the aircraft will be designed is correct, both in terms of the correct requirement for the combat it will need to undertake plus actually deliverable using the technology available at the point in time at which production is required. An example might be the Bolton-Paul Defiant - a perfectly good expression of a flawed operational requirement. As such you could view it as an excellent aircraft as it delivered on the requirement, or a terrible one as a consequence of it being the wrong operational requirement.
@alifr.triyadi36719 ай бұрын
Therapist: The BF-P4U doesn't exist The BF-P4U:
@turijohnthomas9 ай бұрын
Love this video concept. The DH Hornet would’ve been a good place to start. It had WW2 technology. More power than this model. All armament in the nose and best looking piston fighter aircraft ever built.
@kurochi56069 ай бұрын
I REALLY REALLY doubt you'll see this but it kinda looks kinda like the Skyly D/ Skyly J2 from SKY Crawlers. It's a fiction aircraft made after ww2 you should check it out cause i would really like to see your opinions on it! Pretty please! 🙏🙏🙏
@Sentient_Sherman9 ай бұрын
oh thank fuck I'm not the only one, been looking to see if anyone pointed it out before I quoted the film
@messier82ac9 ай бұрын
Hello! I've heard a little bit about sky crawlers and have had a few friends tell me about it. This one is definitely a new comparison, though. Thank you!
@rolanddutton9 ай бұрын
Very cool. Love the weapon config and overall design. Fwiw here are my observations, although I don't if these are relevant to Flyout though. - moving the intake to the wing roots may reduce drag - the rear fuselage, v stab, rudder etc don't look beefy enough to handle a powerful engine and big prop. Late war fighters needed to strengthen these areas as power increased. - alternatively, contra-rotating props would adress torque and p-factor. - high position of the horizontal stabilisers - looks like they might get interference from the fuselage or blanked out by the wings at high AoA.
@RunninWild179 ай бұрын
Very cool concept. Might recommend modifying the underbelly scoop with a cooling door in the rear. That way you take advantage of the Meredith Effect to reduce drag/increase overall thrust. Also the engine cowling, while very sleak, probably does not offer enough space around the engine block for adequate heat dissipation. The Luftwaffe had this issue with the He-177, where they tried shoving two engines into a nacelle that was far to tight, and had huge problems with overheating, bursting into flames and killing the crew. Still a great concept, just needs a bit of refinement.
@karelpgbr10 ай бұрын
DUDE! Yes! I love old warbirds and this is something I’ve theorised and fantasised about quite a few times!
@GenStallion9 ай бұрын
You had me going in the beginning, I almost thought this was a real plane. One of those canceled designs that couldn't compete with jets.
@elnewbie26113 күн бұрын
Bro woke up and made a firecrest and slapped a 1,800 hp engine and called it a day 😭
@iskandartaib9 ай бұрын
I think you missed a few things. By 1945 a lot of the proposed designs put the engine behind the pilot a la P-39 and moved the pilot just behind the prop. This would increase visibility over the nose, especially for taxiing and landing. Tricycle gear was also catching on. Everyone was starting to think this way - Rolls Royce was designing a fighter for its Crecy engine. General Motors had its P-75. The Germans had a proposed Me-509. And if you think about it.. practically all jet fighters use this general layout to this day.
@yourneighbourhooddoomer9 ай бұрын
Gotta show this to Göring as soon as a time machine becomes operational.
@DefinitelySpirit13 күн бұрын
This plane is absolutely beautiful
@mckinleywilson6184Күн бұрын
Its a beautiful aircraft! The gear door design would require incredibly low airspeeds for operation, but thats literally my only gripe
@homercowell729510 ай бұрын
The p52 stallion my beloved
@ozcarplayz165610 ай бұрын
About the supercharger boosting. In modern airplanes it's called ground boost. In modern reciprocating engines, a turbo is used to keep the same engine power up to a certain altitude, this was done with a type of wastegate which would close as altitude increased. But during ww2 you could not really leave any performance on the table. So many planes, especially late war ones, used superchargers which could change gears and therefore spin faster and deliver more air to the engine. This was done manually on some airplanes and automatically in others. The p-47 is an odd example as it featured both a turbocharger and a supercharger. This gave the aircraft pretty good high altitude engine performance On the other hand, the germans used extensive use of MW-50 as well as GM-1 mixtures. Basically GM-1 mixture is just nitros oxide injected into the manifold of the engine(at very high altitudes) and coupeled with MW-50(50% water 50% methanol) injection could keep up with mustangs at high altitudes A little sidetrack but i hope this clears things out. I maybe missed the part where you said it's ground boost it is still morning here afterall...
@TinKnight9 ай бұрын
A few concerns (for a real-world application): Liquid cooled engines tend to be heavier & less reliable than air cooled. The inverted gull wing on the Corsair proved to be heavily limiting for low speed control, landing, & safety in the event of damage. There's a reason pilots preferred the F6F. 3 20mm cannons would've been pretty light armament. Many cannon-armed fighters had 2 or 4 cannons plus MGs. The 8 .50 cal on a P-47 had a much longer firing time plus a higher likelihood of hitting a fleeting target. "Nothing bad comes from being lighter"... tell that to all of the Zeroes that were shot down as soon as Americans learned how to fight. Even the F4F had a positive kill ratio against it, let alone the F4U, F6F, & P-38. The canopy looks to have a limited rear view arc compared to the later versions of the P-47 & P-51. The majority of fighters shot down by other fighters were pounced on from behind & had no idea they were being targeted.
@sarko59899 ай бұрын
God damn this thing is beautiful
@spawnof2009 ай бұрын
I'm pleased with the nice slim wings
@Wolfgang-Schnaufer9 ай бұрын
So what you've designed is basically the German He-112...of 1935. Some experimental versions even had a small rocket motor in the tail. Hindsight indeed...
@belgianfried9 ай бұрын
Tell me how this seems like a He-112. It's like saying a T-72 is a T-54.
@Siegerzkranz10 ай бұрын
Honestly I think it's a better looker than most real planes of the period. The subtle gull-wing and the slim V-engine cowling, plus the tail shape make it look kind of like someone made a prop version of an F-4
@rederos80799 ай бұрын
Impressive power-to-weight isn't the only thing that really matters in terms of performance. A capable airfoil is one of the more important parts too. Thing with the high performing airfoils is though, that they were prone to some interesting stall conditions... I think P-51 was a good example of that. Bf-109 imho has one of the better wing designs, as slats were a really big help in maintaining the stability at high angles of attack. Looking at this plane you made, with a spitfire-like elliptical wingtips, a thin airfoil but a long wing chord, to me it seems like a very typical wingtip staller with perhaps quite dangerous spin characteristics... And the long wing chord with a thin airfoil makes it that when the wing stalls, it's quite agressive, as a lot of lift becomes none at once, since the long leading part of the wing would mask the whole wing at high aoa. A rounder, shorter and thicker wing would stall trailing part of the wing first, with most of the leading part of the wing still flying, providing a typical buffeting warning for the pilot and allowing for higher angles of attack->more pulling. This aircraft to me seems like a very good interceptor, but not much of a dogfighter... I am no expert though, so it would be interesting to see what somebody more professional thinks of this. But anyway, a nice interesting video and topic!
@reinbeers53229 ай бұрын
There are aircraft with long thin wings that had very stable stalls, like the Kawasaki Ki-61 and Ki-100. But since they have very low wingloading, that might be the deciding factor.
@rederos80799 ай бұрын
@@reinbeers5322 I am not about the length of the wing but about the wing chord, i. e. the "width" of the wing, length of an imaginary line running from the leading edge of the wing to the trailing edge.
@reinbeers53229 ай бұрын
@@rederos8079 Yeah, go look at a Ki-61's wings. Pretty long with a narrow chord.
@rederos80799 ай бұрын
@@reinbeers5322 Indeed, and somewhat of a round airfoil... Seems stable enough to me :D Instead I am saying long chord, thin airfoil and short wings seem to be the unstable ones...
@reinbeers53229 ай бұрын
@@rederos8079 The leading and trailing edges are straight, they only round out at the wingtips which is why I mentioned it. I don't know how thin they are, but the thinner you go the more prone to tip stalls they are, which is why the Spitfire had a lot of wing twist for what it was. Given that the Ki-61 is japanese and they loved their maneuverability, probably not much!
@Hikaru109Ichijyo3 ай бұрын
dude pretty awesome, flyout is available on steam now. fun times. big warbird fan also. can't wait to check out designs like prop era experimental or if the software simulates ground efx to see if giant skimming sea planes is a thing
@dester327510 ай бұрын
I dont know exactly why but it feels like a streamlined wyvern
@kevinrusch36277 ай бұрын
The interceptor was popular in the 60s and 70s because its mission was to fly fast and far to fire missiles at bombers and come home. Air-to-air with other fighters wasn't really considered. (try a 2-circle with an F-104)
@FishbedFive9 ай бұрын
Flyout: Ah, shit, now I gotta make fuselage wings now... SimplePlanes: First time?
@flyersniper72496 ай бұрын
6:27 Welcome to the world of Aerodynamics.
@kennethfisher15649 ай бұрын
I love your fighter; it's as cool to see as I bet it would be to fly. Build one, and let me be the first to strap it on and take it for a ride. Great video! Great idea, too.
@lordoftheunderpants60758 ай бұрын
So an HE-100 that actually got some love. Nice!
@TFrog13247 ай бұрын
The perfect WW2 aircraft already exists, the mosquito, it fits all of these requirements very well and is a living meme I love your design though
@PrivateCustard9 ай бұрын
Looks like the bastard-child of a P-51, F-4U, T6 and a Tucano. I love it!
@windwalker57657 ай бұрын
I'm gonna stretch things a bit, using a weapon that wasn't developed until the 1950s, but the technology for it did exist during the war. Start with the P-38, exchange the Allison engines for Merlins, with the 4-bladed prop off the P-51. And it's gonna be armed with a single M61 Vulcan 20mm cannon.
@bradswim9 ай бұрын
I love this concept! Next you should design more aircraft of different eras using the power of hindsight!
@Mr_Dopey9 ай бұрын
I've always favored the F6F Hellcat. Range, armor, durability, and cost were always top tier. The Reno Air races showed you get spectacular results stuffing a Wright R-3350 into an F8F Bearcat. I don't see why that wouldn't work with a Hellcat. From there updating the armament to rotary cannons would be a good idea. I find the Russian Yak B interesting. It's the only gas operated rotary gun I know of. It's weight, length, and rate of fire all lend well to fighter craft.
@AeroAngel1119 ай бұрын
Looks like something straight out of The Sky Crawlers
@AaaBbb-ff1pn8 ай бұрын
by the end of the war every major project shift to rear mounted engine to reduce nose frontal section, tricycle landing gear and free up the nose to armament (concentration of fire). this plane looks conceptually old even with hindsight. it refined an old formula.
@jyevangrootel59899 ай бұрын
Just small correction to an otherwise very informative video! At 8:04 you mentioned the term: “overboosting” Your explanation was spot on however what you are referring to is an altitude boosted system. Overboosting is where you are actually in a state of boost exceeding the maximum rated. Awesome video nonetheless!
@SEMJW9 ай бұрын
As for U.S. design the F8F Grumman Bearcat (nickname; engine with a pistol grip) was the culmination of piston engine fighter/interceptor development by 1944. Core values or Hard Factors need to be complimented with Soft Factors, such as mission adaptability, part/service commonality, reliability, ease of transitional training. It would be interesting to have a 'what if' of using a Wright R3350 radial that was developed for the Boeing B-29 and later for the Douglas Skyraider to power a Super Bearcat that would have a larger airframe not a conversion like the Reno racer named, 'Rare Bear'. It would be the ultimate Zoomiest-Boomiest plane with excellent hard/soft factors and could be put into service more quickly than a radical prototype based project. The Grumman Hellcat is a good example of that.
@fidelismiles743910 ай бұрын
Sky Crawlers called, The Teacher wants to duel your plane in a dogfight.
@oscarzt16529 ай бұрын
this game youre using is just like a really in-depth version of simpleplanes
@erich93010 ай бұрын
Great video! I love all of your content, and I would love to try Flyout one day. Are torque, P-factor, and spiraling slipstream simulated in the game yet? If not, do you know if the developers have plans to implement them? Spiraling slipstream in particular seems like it would be the most difficult to simulate accurately in a plane building game.
@That_Guy55759 ай бұрын
Would love for Greg to chime in on this awesome thought process proof of concept. Edit: Any considerations for self-sealing fuel cells or cockpit armor? Also, what about water/methyl injection?
@TheParchisi9 ай бұрын
I don't think Greg would waste his time. Though an interesting concept for a video and somewhat entertaining, trying to even remotely capture what would go into the "best" WWII fighter (if such a thing could exist given the different theaters and conditions) in an 11 minute video is an exercise in futility.
@jonathanalexander72259 ай бұрын
Really nice piece of work. One thing I would have personally added would be contra rotating props. This design as is would have the same vice that most heavy, fast WWII fighters had, namely, the pronounced torque twisting that plagued the P-51, Fw-190D, and other high powered fighters. Eliminating that torque is a tremendous boon to dogfighting capability, allowing the pilot to eke out even tighter and faster turns.
@jcgamer8929 ай бұрын
almost looks like a cross between an American Corsair, German BF109 and Italian G55
@HerraTohtori10 ай бұрын
The design looks very sleek and undoubtedly very suitable for an interceptor. Before choosing this design as the main fighter of my air force in fictional late 1940s, I would want to know if this aircraft could cover other mission roles such as escort missions requiring long range. What is the fuel endurance like? Would the aircraft have enough fuel to not require constant monitoring of fuel levels during missions other than interceptions over friendly territory? What about suitability for multi-role capability, like carrying air-to-ground ordnance? Another aspect I would want to know is survivability. Does the aircraft feature any armour for the pilot, engine, or the cooling systems? The liquid-cooled engine is fine and many other designs use very similar solution, but an air-cooled radial would have potential for better damage tolerance. Not that I'm questioning the design choices but my fleet aviators were shouting something about a tail hooks and ditching the coolant so that you could cross vast distances over ocean even when missing a few percent of the engine... What about cost? It was mentioned that this aircraft uses a turbocharger for forced induction. How does that affect the cost of the aircraft? Is the turbocharger reliable? How does the ducting work, is there an intercooler somewhere? Could similar performance be achieved at lower cost and weight by using a multi-stage/multi-speed supercharger or a single-stage variable speed supercharger instead? What kind of flight performance does the aircraft have? What about handling characteristics? Is the aircraft easy to fly or is it prone to losing control in stalls? Are the wings more optimized for low drag with a laminar flow aerofoil design, or do they feature a more conventional aerofoil that delays flow separation and gives more forgiving flight characteristics with higher stall AoA? Three 20mm cannons on the nose is adequate armament, but I would be interested in possibility of upgrading the motor cannon to a 30mm, and possibly installing additional guns on wing roots. Especially if the aircraft's main intended role is to be an interceptor, I would want additional firepower to inflict the highest possible damage to bombers during attacks, to shorten the time the aircraft has to stay within the gunners' effective range. Alternatively, a nation I know might be interested in filling the wing leading edge with machine guns, just to make their logistics simpler because they use that particular machine gun cartridge everywhere anyway...
@pizzagogo61519 ай бұрын
Nice effort....but pretty much reinventing the wheel 😮, it would have been much easier to model a developed version of the Martin Baker MB5😉
@Skinflaps_Meatslapper4 ай бұрын
I can tell just from looking at it that you'd have all sorts of trouble with stability if it were a real plane. The wings need a lot more dihedral, and in turn, the vertical and rudder would need to be larger to maintain good directional control. It'd be like balancing on top of a drum.
@ChristopherGriffin-ee2ol6 ай бұрын
The ME-163 is a Wunderwaffen/Wonder-Weapon. Of course, it's dangerous, more so to its user and less so to Allied Bombers, but one thing you missed is the ME-262, the first operational jet in the world
@johnsmith42249 ай бұрын
Well, I want to give my take and a few constructive criticisms. While water cooled engine creates less drag thus achieving a better top speed, an air cooled radial engine is less prone to damage, making sure that the pliot could likely return if their plane is damaged, which is why most naval based aircrafts use it. Nose mounted cannons are accurate indeed, but it's much harder for maintenance, and the heat from firing the weapon can get to engine, which is definitely something you don't want. A small airframe would also make the aircraft nimble and harder to hit while suitable for operation on carriers. This is why I think the ultimate prop fighter design either goes to f8f or sea fury, but that's just my take.
@perotekku9 ай бұрын
Now there's a pretty plane, exquisite!
@vipertwenty2497 ай бұрын
As a matter of interest. black stripes very similar to the later invasion stripes were added to the British Typhoon fighters due to recognition problems resulting in friendly fire incidents. This was around 2 years before the Normandy campaign.
@jacksonpound64082 ай бұрын
when I read it I thought you ere talking about the eurofighter typhoon first.
@vipertwenty2492 ай бұрын
@@jacksonpound6408 Apparently the Typhoon was being mistaken for the Fw190 and attacked in friendly fire incidents, with at least one killed, right from it's introduction in 1942. This was, it's fair to say, the least of its problems.
@jacksonpound6408Ай бұрын
@@vipertwenty249 I was talking about the jet. not the prop plane
@vipertwenty249Ай бұрын
@@jacksonpound6408 I was talking about the prop plane not the jet.