Propeller INSANITY - The Convair Model 37!

  Рет қаралды 198,545

Found And Explained

Found And Explained

3 жыл бұрын

In the post-war glow of the late 1940s, Pan Am shocked the world with news that it had placed an order for a truly insane aircraft - taller than a five-story building and with six propeller engines, it could carry an unimaginable amount of people in first class, across two decks from both edges of the Atlantic ocean
but this early jumbo airline would never actually make it off the production line, and its prototype would end up lost in the desert.
This is the story of the never build, Convair Model 37
After the end of world war two, the US military understood the need for rapid troop transportation around the world, and that aircraft provide the ideal solution over ships. Thus they contracted convair to design a heavy cargo aircraft that would become the largest piston-engined transport ever built.
Conviar started with its other large aircraft at the time, the B-36 pacemaker, and took its wings and controls for this never version dubbed the XC-99. It would have a cpacity to transport 400 fully equipped troops across the Atlantic at a moments notice, or delivery aid to europe especially for those cities isolated by hostile forces.
Incredibly Convair managed to build a service prototype, that took to the skies in 1947 and would operate for the US airforce as an essential cargo lift in the Korean war - setting several records in cargo capacity and flight times as it did so, putting the design, and its team on the map.
But the engineers who came up with the xc-99 had much grander plans than a simple military transport... they knew they could change the future of air travel forever.
this is what they came up with.
The Convair Model 37 was a gigantic plane. It had a length of 182 ft 6 in (55.63 m) and a wingspan of 230 ft 0 in (70.10 m), which is one meter shorter than the folding wingspan of the Boeing 777X. It was tall too, coming in at 57 ft 6 in (17.53 m).
With its five cockpit crew and five relief crew members - for a total of ten on the flight deck, it would be able to transport 400 troops in a military configuration, 100,000 lb (45,000 kg) cargo if a cargo carrier, or 204 passengers in the very best luxury of the era.
If economy class had been invented back then, it is likely we would have seen 400-500 passengers per flight. Which would have been low key incredible for the era.
It was powered by six Pratt & Whitney R-4,3,60-41, Wasp Major 28-cylinder, air-cooled radial piston engines, that could push out 3,500 hp (2,600 kW) each.
With a fuel capacity of 19,112 US gal (72,350 liters), it could fly a total range of ,4,200 miles or 6,800 km with a 10,000 lb (4,500 kg) payload, putting it well within reach of European cities with a single refueling stop.
It did however, only fly at a maximum speed of 307 mph (494 km/h), which is just over half the speed of modern jetliners today. So clearly it would have taken a while for passengers to make the transatlantic hop. Unlike the military version, the civil version wouldn't have the complicated radar nose but instead would have something for lack of a better world, elegant.
Launching this design to much fanfair, 15 orders were quickly snapped up by then airline jugganaught Panam, who sought to use this beast of an aircraft to link europe with north america. They claimed that 11 of these aircraft would transport 440,000 passengers per year between london and new york. It advertised that the trip would take only 9 hours, and that it would boast several lounges and full bathrooms across two decks. Fancy
So if this aircraft was going to bring a new age of luxury trans-Atlantic travel to the massess, why was it never built?
There are several reasons why the model 37 never graced our skies and didn't become the backbone of airline operations.
lets talk about those engines - the truth is that they were deemed far too insufficent for the task at hand of powering this enourmous aircraft.
Also, there was a general feeling at the time that the plane was simply too big.
Into the jet age, likely it would have become a cargo carrier and eventually used for special operations like fire fighting, where its huge capacity and slower speed would have made it idea for creating vast fire breaks.
But its future today, just like the single prototype ordered the us airforce that was built and retired in 1957, would be rusty away in the middle of the sunny mojave desert. The military determined that it had no need for such a large long-range transport at the time, and the arrival of the jet engine only a few short years later made the idea of a six-engine monster plane propositus.
You can find the original XC-99 cut up to peices in a"boneyard" at Davis Monthan outside of Tuscon, there were plans to perseve it at the museum, but such a huge fuslage is hard to keep together, and like many other never built projects it has now been put to rest only to dream of a future that never was.

Пікірлер: 552
@dunodisko2217
@dunodisko2217 3 жыл бұрын
Ah, yes. The B-36 Pacemaker. Not to be confused with the cardiac assistance device, the Peacemaker.
@FoundAndExplained
@FoundAndExplained 3 жыл бұрын
Hehe
@BosworthMcG
@BosworthMcG 3 жыл бұрын
@@FoundAndExplained dude this is a great video, but there are several errors where you misread words. Pistol engines, eggceptional etc. tidy those up and you’ll be rocking . Keep up the good work!
@LogieT2K
@LogieT2K 3 жыл бұрын
@@BosworthMcG he is australian he cant help it
@ytbandit1951
@ytbandit1951 3 жыл бұрын
@@BosworthMcG I "exspecially" want a "pistol" engine too!
@scottjustscott3730
@scottjustscott3730 3 жыл бұрын
@@ytbandit1951 sounds like an option package for your brand new 1968 AMC. Yes sir! I ordered my new AMX with the pacemaker pistol engine package! Set me back another seventy five bucks but it was well worth it!
@imagereader_9
@imagereader_9 3 жыл бұрын
There was a time when you could 'tour' this airplane as it sat, slowly rotting beside the runway at Kelly AFB. I went through it around 1972, and was stunned at how thin and even flimsy its fuselage seemed. I'm not sure if it was ever insulated, but when I saw it, it was about as bare bones inside as it could be. Just the frames and the skin, the latter looking as if it had the thickness of a Spam can. One of the 'emergency exit' hatches had been removed and left on the floor next to the opening. I picked it up and it was so light, it was as if it had been made out of sheets of poster board.
@cbmech2563
@cbmech2563 3 жыл бұрын
Open cockpit day at Castle Air Museum you can tour the cockpit of their B36, except this year they had a hydraulic failure and were unable to get the bottom access door open 🥺. My grandson loves going through the 36.
@bmac7643
@bmac7643 3 жыл бұрын
B-36 2 Electric Boogaloo
@tlshortyshorty5810
@tlshortyshorty5810 3 жыл бұрын
If only it had 4 burning as well
@soetekinhaentjens1462
@soetekinhaentjens1462 3 жыл бұрын
I see a grian fan
@bmac7643
@bmac7643 3 жыл бұрын
@@tlshortyshorty5810 one can wish
@catf4077
@catf4077 3 жыл бұрын
r2da
@SirFawzar
@SirFawzar 3 жыл бұрын
This plane looks like a breed between Bristol Brabazon and B-36, really
@autism-overlord
@autism-overlord 3 жыл бұрын
That is because it actually is based of the B-36, like other planes coming out of ww2, it could have been retrofitted to be a civilian passenger plane
@StudeSteve62
@StudeSteve62 3 жыл бұрын
It does. One example was built, but as a military airlifter. Saw substantial service. Afterward it went on outdoor display across the road from Kelly AFB in Texas. It is now in disassembled storage at the Pima air museum in Arizona, having been slated for a restoration at Dayton that proved impracticable...
@Recon135
@Recon135 3 жыл бұрын
@@StudeSteve62 While in the AF I got to see the XC-99 at Kelly. It was an awesome aircraft.
@edwardfletcher7790
@edwardfletcher7790 3 жыл бұрын
03:30 Love those old "pistol engines" ! lol
@StudeSteve62
@StudeSteve62 3 жыл бұрын
Not to mention "Pacemaker". B-36's name was "Peacemaker"...
@scootergeorge9576
@scootergeorge9576 3 жыл бұрын
@@StudeSteve62 - Unofficially. The USAF never actually named the B-36.
@funstuff2006
@funstuff2006 3 жыл бұрын
@@StudeSteve62 I was chalking "pacemaker" to the Aussie accent. "Radial pistol engine" on the other hand . . .
@therealniksongs
@therealniksongs 2 ай бұрын
@@StudeSteve62 You don't understand. "Pacemaker" is simply Oz-tralian for "Peacemaker."
@antonykuo3809
@antonykuo3809 3 жыл бұрын
Ryan Air: Lets fit 800 in this plane.
@jasoncentore1830
@jasoncentore1830 3 жыл бұрын
Your being generous, I was thinking 1000 of those stand up seats seatmakers are coming up with
@A..T..M..
@A..T..M.. 3 жыл бұрын
Cuanto me ubiera gustado aver nasido antes para poder escuchar rugir esos motores
@syxepop
@syxepop 3 жыл бұрын
@@A..T..M.. - sabes que ese avión nunca pudo ser construido porque sus 6 motores con hélice no eran lo suficiente para levantar 204 pasajeros (a la mitad de la velocidad de los jets actuales) en esa era? (y no había precedente para tantos pasajeros de 1a clase juntos, ya que "la clase turista" no se había inventado aún) ... y que el comentario que estas respondiendo es "una mofa" de una aerolínea irlandesa que tiene la reputación de poner a sus pasajeros "como sardinas en lata"? Creo de haber habido algo como Ryanair (o Spirit en EEUU) en los 1950's hubieran intentado poner los mismos 400 pasajeros "en esa lata de sardinas" como se proponía hacer para llevar tropas militares.
@patrickradcliffe3837
@patrickradcliffe3837 3 жыл бұрын
B-36 Peacemaker keeping the heart of SAC beating regularly. That's a pretty big caliber "Pistol" engine.
@danielocarey9392
@danielocarey9392 2 ай бұрын
Not PACE-Maker. It was PEACE-Maker. The narrator either was wrong or being an Aussie just sounded wrong.
@patrickradcliffe3837
@patrickradcliffe3837 2 ай бұрын
@@danielocarey9392 autocorrect got me hahaha
@davef.2811
@davef.2811 3 жыл бұрын
Fuel stops=maintenance stops. Barrels of oil, cases/pallets of spark plugs, and QEC's all over creation. And PTSD therapy sessions for the FE's.
@riliryrimaddyvia9630
@riliryrimaddyvia9630 3 жыл бұрын
I certainly do love your videos,they always cheer me up if I'm bored or feeling sad.
@hectorsantiago5350
@hectorsantiago5350 3 жыл бұрын
You really bring out the emotion of aviation history with your videos! Thank you and keep it up!
@skunkbucket9408
@skunkbucket9408 3 жыл бұрын
1:00 I would argue that the Model 37 was NOT "the world's largest piston-engine transport ever built." That honor goes to the Hughes H-4 Hercules "Spruce Goose." Yes, it only flew once and never went into service, but it did survive and you can still see it in the museum.
@danielocarey9392
@danielocarey9392 2 ай бұрын
I've been to both. And both are probably true. The Hughes Hercules had a bigger wing I believe. And it was powered by 8 instead of 6 engines. But the 99 was probably a basically larger bird.... I think.
@gabrielb9010
@gabrielb9010 3 жыл бұрын
This aircraft could have been an exelent choice for Pan Am or Northwest
@markfrost8745
@markfrost8745 3 жыл бұрын
No, it wouldn't. The B-36 and XC-99 used my favorite engine of WW2, the R-4360 Wasp Major. Unfortunately, the engines were mounted 'backward'. This is due to the pusher type of propulsion. This engine configuration caused issues, just one of which was carburetor icing. With the carb positioned in the 'front', the carb didn't get the benefit of heat from the engines. This caused some of the engine fires the B-36 was notorius for. The engines were also fully enclosed, creating overheating issues, thus reliability issues. The old adage about the B-36 "six turning and four burning" was modified by the crews to "two turning, two burning, two smoking, two choking and two more unaccounted for." So, no, this aircraft would have been an extremely poor choice for the airlines. Just because the aircraft set records, doesn't make it a good aircraft for day to day service. You can bet the aircraft used for the record setting flights were cherry picked from the fleet and meticulously prepared. With the issues the B-36 had in its day to day service, it's very frightening to consider this aircraft as an airliner. Airliner maintenance, even back then, was not the best.
@keithammleter3824
@keithammleter3824 3 жыл бұрын
@@markfrost8745 : Quite so. In the military, you follow orders. If it catches fire, execute the fire check list and hope. If you survive, well, you get ordered to fly again. In civilian use, after 2 or three fires reported in the news media no one would fly in the thing. No one wanted to fly in a Comet long after they fixed the design flaws. Anybody who thought it was reasonable to convert the B36 into a civilian airliner must have been smoking really good weed.
@markfrost8745
@markfrost8745 3 жыл бұрын
@@keithammleter3824 Back then, it was called "smoking rope." My mom, from the eastern hills of Kentucky, before she passed in '11, sometimes used that phrase. I'm sure some of the mind altering effects also came from the chemicals used for preserving the rope. Hemp was grown and used as rope quite a bit here in Kentucky, you can still walk some fields and find it. Regarding the military, been there done that. Although, my unit had a Master Chief in maintenance that was damn good.
@flavortown3781
@flavortown3781 3 жыл бұрын
@@markfrost8745 it grows wild down every rail line in the state just about I've walked a few and always always smell it reminds me of my youth, but compared to the modern hybrids it's kinda shitty
@deeacosta2734
@deeacosta2734 3 жыл бұрын
If you don’t care about passenger deaths sure.
@mikerichards6065
@mikerichards6065 3 жыл бұрын
Really interesting to see how this compares to the enormous Bristol Brabazon which was pretty much the same size, had non-stop transatlantic range and did actually fly as a prototype. Convair at least thought things through and planned to carry a decent number of passengers; whereas the Brabazon would only carry 60 people in stupendous levels of luxury. Bristol planned a turboprop Brabazon 2, the project was abandoned in favour of the much smaller Britannia.
@danielocarey9392
@danielocarey9392 2 ай бұрын
All true. But the Bristol surely was a beautiful aircraft. Wow.
@R.U.1.2.
@R.U.1.2. 3 жыл бұрын
Thank you for including the metric conversions. Much appreciated.
@riliryrimaddyvia9630
@riliryrimaddyvia9630 3 жыл бұрын
Another great video,keep up the good work
@pianoplayer5000
@pianoplayer5000 3 жыл бұрын
Thanks for this video. I have 1/200 model of this aircraft in the PanAm livery that I treasure.
@FoundAndExplained
@FoundAndExplained 3 жыл бұрын
Very cool!
@riliryrimaddyvia9630
@riliryrimaddyvia9630 3 жыл бұрын
Imagine if this plane just came out later with jet engines and maybe more airlines would buy it?
@stephenketcham4179
@stephenketcham4179 3 жыл бұрын
A double decker version of the YB-60 bomber.
@shreybhandari4233
@shreybhandari4233 3 жыл бұрын
Yes maybe
@mcnudde
@mcnudde 3 жыл бұрын
@@stephenketcham4179 Convair had such a version planned: the Model 6
@Prof.Megamind.thinks.about.it.
@Prof.Megamind.thinks.about.it. 3 жыл бұрын
@@mcnudde The main problem with the Model-6 was the J-57 engines ; they were not only unreliable then , they were also fuel-hogs . Add to this the lack of jumbo-capacity airport terminals , and the superior speed of the coming narrow-bodies , and it becomes clear why Convair shelved the Model-6 project . *To examine this subject more closely , read my Post at : quora.com/How-long-was-the-Convair-XC-99-kept-in-service-with-the-U-S-Air-Force-as-a-transport-Was-the-designation-ever-changed-to-C-99-and-were-4-GE-J-47-jet-engines-ever-installed-as-they-were-on-the-B-36/
@rolandogamez
@rolandogamez 3 жыл бұрын
I think a Turbopop version might have been better.
@blurglide
@blurglide 3 жыл бұрын
A lot of sloppy inaccuracies in this one. I saw the XC-99 cargo version of that rotting away at the end of the runway at Kelly AFB in San Antonio about 20 years ago. San Antonio is not in the mojave desert- it's in Texas. They hauled it off to the Air Force Museum in Ohio a few years ago, not to Davis Monthan in Arizona . Also, the B-36 is the "Peacemaker", not the "Pacemaker" and it's "piston engine", not "pistol engine"
@burtbacarach5034
@burtbacarach5034 3 жыл бұрын
I thought he said "Peacemaker',just with a accent.Did catch the pistol engine thing tho.IIRC the XC99 used the prototype B36 undercarriage,the huge single truck affairs.The plane was so heavy it broke up the landing feilds so they switched to the multi truck gear.My dad flew on B36's during the 50's,man did he have some tales to tell.
@andrewthomson
@andrewthomson 3 жыл бұрын
I thought I was just imagining these things... Glad someone else noticed.
@nobodyknows3180
@nobodyknows3180 3 жыл бұрын
I saw a B-36 in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, can't remember where, but I think it was somewhere around the DFW airport. But that was 35 years ago. I've always wondered what became of it - I hope somebody took pains to preserve it. [Edit - researched that - it was at the old Amon Carter Field, aka Greater Southwest International Airport, was moved to a museum aptly named the B-36 Peacekeeper Museum in Fort Worth (it still exists) but they couldn't handle the upkeep, so it was moved to the Pima Air & Space Museum in Tucson, Arizona. ]
@jimcurt99
@jimcurt99 3 жыл бұрын
@@nobodyknows3180 Live in Tucson- I've seen the B-36 at the museum- it's HUGE- must have been impressive to see that beast fly...
@nobodyknows3180
@nobodyknows3180 3 жыл бұрын
@@jimcurt99 My dad always said they made a very unique sound very much unlike other aircraft.
@AaronCMounts
@AaronCMounts 3 жыл бұрын
6:50 - Definitely looking at the past through the lens of today. Prior to the construction of the Jebel Ali seaport, Dubai was little more than a fishing village with barely a few thousand population. Also, Singapore did not come to prominence on the global stage until after it gained independence from Malaysia in 1965.
@RydalS
@RydalS 3 жыл бұрын
Brilliant video. Thanks
@c-57d55
@c-57d55 3 жыл бұрын
Terrific interesting video!! Thanks for posting!!
@SchaliAction
@SchaliAction 3 жыл бұрын
If the emdines were turning in the same direction and if the propellers were the Same as in your animation, the plane would fly backwards. Pushing propellers use negative pitch.
@scotttait2197
@scotttait2197 3 жыл бұрын
Dont you start with the typos enough mis pronunciation in the video
@ableland64
@ableland64 3 жыл бұрын
You were right the propellers were wrong pitch and would be pushing the plane backwards
@danielocarey9392
@danielocarey9392 2 ай бұрын
Good observation.
@charlesrussell1764
@charlesrussell1764 3 жыл бұрын
It was amusing to see the route map, down to Australia and then on to Singapore completely by passing New Zealand.Hey, hey! we're here! Hey hey! We're here!
@johno9507
@johno9507 3 жыл бұрын
New Zealand is just a large breakwater for Sydney...it really has no other purpose. 😏🇦🇺
@charlesrussell1764
@charlesrussell1764 3 жыл бұрын
@@johno9507 Actually it is a rather small breakwater that has no other purpose, since not many people have heard of us.
@roydrink
@roydrink 3 жыл бұрын
And what about Japan?
@charlesrussell1764
@charlesrussell1764 3 жыл бұрын
@@roydrink I confess I missed that.I suppose in those days they weren't considered a viable stop- off.
@ressljs
@ressljs 3 жыл бұрын
@@roydrink I'm not trying to be rude, because I love traveling to Japan and my job is also tied to that country. But... When this plane was on the drawing boards, I'm not sure many people considered Japan a major destination.
@Chuck59ish
@Chuck59ish 3 жыл бұрын
The B-36 was The Peacemaker, not the Pacemaker.
@archiescriven6178
@archiescriven6178 3 жыл бұрын
He said radial pistol engines too
@nobodyknows3180
@nobodyknows3180 3 жыл бұрын
I was just looking at specs for the B-36. It dwarfs the earlier B-29.
@MartinWillett
@MartinWillett 3 жыл бұрын
Slip of the tongue, reading error or auto- "correct"?
@MartinWillett
@MartinWillett 3 жыл бұрын
@@archiescriven6178 Maybe that was a Freudian slip. Colt Peacemaker.
@Chuck59ish
@Chuck59ish 3 жыл бұрын
@@nobodyknows3180 There 3 B-36s in Museums, at Dayton, OH, Ft. Worth, TX and Tucson, AZ and it is a huge mother.
@F22Lover
@F22Lover 3 жыл бұрын
0:35 How do you lose a plane that BIG? *"Hey Bill did you ever find that prototype super airliner?"* *"Yeah it fell between the couch cushions"*
@danielocarey9392
@danielocarey9392 2 ай бұрын
Losing it was sort of a hyperbaly. They didn't actually lose the airplane. Its last flight was to Kelly AFB in Texas where it sat for decades before being transported to Wright Pat.
@fulanitoflyer
@fulanitoflyer 3 жыл бұрын
you make so much good content, been binge watching this channel.
@FoundAndExplained
@FoundAndExplained 3 жыл бұрын
thanks!
@FoundAndExplained
@FoundAndExplained 3 жыл бұрын
i have like 70 videos on the channel and it blows my mind that i get recommendations all the time to do videos... that i've already done. People are like "you should do xyz project" but its already on my channel a month ago! so thanks for rewatching my older stuff :)
@fulanitoflyer
@fulanitoflyer 3 жыл бұрын
@@FoundAndExplained Yeah for sure! while its not civil aviation per se, perhaps you could do a video on the old sea dragon rocket would be really interesting.
@markpatterson4917
@markpatterson4917 3 жыл бұрын
Another plane that fell into the same trap as the Bristol Brabazon. Impressive didn't know about this thankyou keep up the good work
@EstorilEm
@EstorilEm 2 жыл бұрын
Not really, this evolved from a very successful and important strategic bomber. Likewise the power plants were common on many aircraft and not funded/developed for a prototype. In the end convair didn’t really lose any money over the decision of airlines not to purchase it, while Bristol and the others lost over 8 million bucks (back then!)
@danielocarey9392
@danielocarey9392 2 ай бұрын
Well... the Bristol was a failed prototype. But the USAF used the XC-99 for about 10 years to transport troupes. And the commercial version was only on paper. No loss there except opportunity cost.
@stevenvirdenrasmussen-jone4671
@stevenvirdenrasmussen-jone4671 3 жыл бұрын
My Dad worked at McClellan AFB, which was one of the few bases that could handle the XC99. It was a beast, and needed a very heavy duty runway
@danielocarey9392
@danielocarey9392 2 ай бұрын
YES. Before the landing gear was modernized the only fields that could handle it were Fort Worth and San Diego.
@paulvanobberghen
@paulvanobberghen 3 жыл бұрын
Convair is the contraction of 2 manufacturer's name that merged in 1943: Consolidated (B24 Liberator) and Vultee (B13 Valiant). Another "major" problem with the Pratt's Wasp Major was the same as on the B36 from which it was derived due to its rear facing configuration at the back of the wing. It was frequently overheating and catching fire in flight. For the lovers of the B36, see Anthony Mann's 1955 movie "Strategic Air Command" with James Stewart, an Air Force officer himself. Numerous high definition sequences with the B36 Peacemaker and later B47 Stratojet.
@danielocarey9392
@danielocarey9392 2 ай бұрын
Also at high altitude sometimes the oil became too solid and splattered out damaging the skin. But I would think the vibration would be great from a varied wind velocity from the top of the wing vs the bottom. Putting the engines in the front eliminates this .
@wytzefull
@wytzefull 3 жыл бұрын
great content love it!
@jayyydizzzle
@jayyydizzzle 3 жыл бұрын
Great vid
@widecat-1838
@widecat-1838 3 жыл бұрын
I was in the USAF and stationed at Kelly AFB in the early 1990s. I used to see the XC99 sitting in a field at the end of the flight line going to waste.
@StudeSteve62
@StudeSteve62 3 жыл бұрын
I was inside that beast once around that time. Visited Texas to see old planes. Loved the place, have unfortunately never been back since...
@jmace5964
@jmace5964 3 жыл бұрын
Even the us air force had trouble keeping up on maintenance on the b36
@mightymystery9204
@mightymystery9204 3 жыл бұрын
Biggest issue was illustrated by a team of airmen who built a scale flying model of the B36, when it was in service: balancing the engine thrust would have been a tuning nightmare. Radial engines were such a specialized challenge that, after turboprops became viable, eventually, by the 1980's, there were only two genuine radial maintenance facilities in the United States, one of them, Piedmont Airmotive, being called upon heavily for outdated or restored aircraft, including one of the last Stratofreighters.
@danielocarey9392
@danielocarey9392 2 ай бұрын
The initial maintenance was a development process. The oil splattering out of engines at high altitudes was like ice, and would damage the skin. And the engines didn't cool well either. But those problems were mostly ironed out. However, probably PanAm would get to destination with one engine not turning, I suspect. But actually the expected air passenger traffic didn't arrive for 10 years.
@hambonemoerke3744
@hambonemoerke3744 3 жыл бұрын
Meyers Jacobsen, author of the Peacemaker and I were buddies in the USAF, Parks AFB, CA and worked on the book and we lived later in San Diego, CA. He was a determined person and I attempted to get out of the project but without success. He had planned an aero park in San Diego and later moved it to Palm Springs, CA where he finished THE PEACEMAKER. While I was at Travis AFB my friend was George Tomasck, base photographer and we flew in the XC-99. Travis was a truly beautiful base and is better today. Meyers Aero Park was later destined for Palm Springs but it was a gigantic costly project that failed but Meyers and I remained friends until his demise. He communicated with many people (LaMay, Jimmy Stewart and the B-36 test pilot Byrl Erickson) regarding the B-36 and sponsored a reunion at Castle AFB, CA which was a big success. So many memories,, thank you.
@danielocarey9392
@danielocarey9392 2 ай бұрын
As a boy I saw the XC-99 a few times in SAN. But I never flew on it. Dad designed the flight deck.
@bocahdongo7769
@bocahdongo7769 3 жыл бұрын
Imagine the motto of this plane advertisement *Two Turning, Two Smoking, Two Unaccounted for*
@daviddunsmore103
@daviddunsmore103 3 жыл бұрын
Two turning, two burning, two smoking, two choking, and two more, unaccounted for. 😀
@Climber_Doge
@Climber_Doge 3 жыл бұрын
B-36 Peacemaker? More like B-36 FREEDOMmaker.
@cranklabexplosion-labcentr8245
@cranklabexplosion-labcentr8245 3 жыл бұрын
Don’t call them bombs, they are liberty cylinders.
@nobodyknows3180
@nobodyknows3180 3 жыл бұрын
@@cranklabexplosion-labcentr8245 democracy exportation devices
@EmbeddedWithin
@EmbeddedWithin 3 жыл бұрын
@@nobodyknows3180 cylindrical turkeys with extra load in the turkeys.
@StudeSteve62
@StudeSteve62 3 жыл бұрын
"Peacemaker" was specifically in reference to its being a deterrent. And it worked: no B-36 ever saw action...
@nobodyknows3180
@nobodyknows3180 3 жыл бұрын
@@StudeSteve62 Nor did its replacement the B-47, except for the reconnaissance variants.
@danielocarey9392
@danielocarey9392 2 ай бұрын
Jim Sproat was given the commission to design the flight deck of the XC-99, I've been told. And just behind this flight station was a sleep station for one of the 2-crews to utilize for ultra long flights. The last time I saw the plane was at Kelly AFB in Texas. But it flew into Lindburgh Field at San Diego where it was built several times. The USAF configuration I believe was 200 troupes on each floor for a total of 400.
@TheB49
@TheB49 3 жыл бұрын
I worked with a guy who was a radio operator on a B 36. He said they never came back from a mission with all six engines running. One mission they had to shut down four and made an emergency landing at the nearest base! With 56 spark plugs per engine, 336 per plane, they changed after every mission?? No airline could deal with that! It's a good thing they never got into combat, those Mig 15s would have massacred them!
@slimshady676
@slimshady676 3 жыл бұрын
This channel is so underrated
@mortified776
@mortified776 2 жыл бұрын
Cool! I never heard of this one.
@Matt_from_Florida
@Matt_from_Florida 3 жыл бұрын
6:48 BOAC *was never pronounced like it was a word.* Instead, *the individual letter names were said, B.O.A.C. (Bee Oh Ay See).*
@danawilkes6174
@danawilkes6174 2 жыл бұрын
I am 71 and heard it pronounced BOAC many times...
@Matt_from_Florida
@Matt_from_Florida 2 жыл бұрын
@@danawilkes6174 Noted British historian Mark Felton: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/prZhaK6f1ajIo40.html
@erichpizer1
@erichpizer1 3 жыл бұрын
good vid. tks
@parrotraiser6541
@parrotraiser6541 3 жыл бұрын
6 x 28 x 2 = 366 spark plugs to be changed regularly. (Assuming that one or more haven't caught fire in-flight.)
@williamprice3929
@williamprice3929 3 жыл бұрын
You have a good site, keep up the good, hard, work. Also, I would love to fly some of these designs, like the Convair Kingfisher, in Microsoft FSX.
@rev.andyh.1082
@rev.andyh.1082 3 жыл бұрын
How does this channel not have a million subscribers yet?
@billmullins6833
@billmullins6833 3 жыл бұрын
I have been inside the XC-99. I don't know if it is still there but at one time it was on static display at Kelly AFB, San Antonio, Texas. It was a monster. Amazing feat of engineering. Too bad it never went into production.
@luckytaylor382
@luckytaylor382 3 жыл бұрын
3:34 “Pistol engines” Pronunciation isn’t this channel’s strong suit.
@kimmer6
@kimmer6 3 жыл бұрын
You will notice that the animated engines are turning backwards...reverse thrust when it flies.
@jamesyates48
@jamesyates48 3 жыл бұрын
Who cares ??? I don't. I've learnt in time to understand him Unfortunately don't think other people try.. so sad.
@stephengardiner9867
@stephengardiner9867 3 жыл бұрын
Caught that one too... along with "Pacemaker"... arrgh, but my ears still hurt!
@Recon135
@Recon135 3 жыл бұрын
@@kimmer6The rotation depends on the camber or pitch of the props. The B-36/XC-99 engine were pusher types rather than a tractor types. Some aircraft were designed with counter rotating props on all multiple engines (contra-rotating) like the Russian Tu-95 Bear and the Northrop XB-35. The gearing got a little complicated and heavy.
@kimmer6
@kimmer6 3 жыл бұрын
@@Recon135 These in the video are absolutely turning backwards.
@pontuswendt2486
@pontuswendt2486 3 жыл бұрын
AMAZINGNES!!!
@cranklabexplosion-labcentr8245
@cranklabexplosion-labcentr8245 3 жыл бұрын
B-36 Pacemaker lol nice
@magellan6108
@magellan6108 3 жыл бұрын
The military variant, the XC-99, was at Kelly AFB for quite awhile. It was loaned for display for a time, but that is another story. I got on board at Kelly. It was/is huge. I could stand up in the wing at the wing root. I am a tad over 6 ft.
@ebikeracer9
@ebikeracer9 3 жыл бұрын
3:33 pistol engines
@nobodyknows3180
@nobodyknows3180 3 жыл бұрын
runs on gunpowder?
@ralphludwig6202
@ralphludwig6202 3 жыл бұрын
The XC 99 is going to the Museum of the USAF in Dayton Ohio. It was disassembled for shipping.
@lbe1309
@lbe1309 3 жыл бұрын
the props are turning in the wrong direction ...
@michaeleberly7351
@michaeleberly7351 3 жыл бұрын
Yes they are ... it's the propeller blades themselves which are incorrect. Actually the both could be wrong. In fact it is practically certain that not all the propellers on a real aircraft would be rotating in the same direction. This footage from the movie "Strategic Air Command" should suggest how the engines turned. The engines on the opposite side probably turned in the other direction from the one shown in the film. So ... Counter clockwise starboard side, and Clockwise port side. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/b6x6idulubTOep8.html
@FSXgta
@FSXgta 3 жыл бұрын
and the engines are backwards...
@Michael.Chapman
@Michael.Chapman 3 жыл бұрын
This ‘preposterous’ 6-piston-engined huge aircraft was ‘soon’ followed by the military contract for an 8-turbojet-engined Boeing beast, still in service today after > 50 years, that we all know as the venerable B52 :-)
@danielocarey9392
@danielocarey9392 2 ай бұрын
On a windy night at Fort Worth one B-36 was lifted up and came down on another one. Since they were heavily damaged the USAF commissioned Convair to modify the 2 birds into two swept wing, 8 jet bombers called the B-60.
@michaelpcoffee
@michaelpcoffee 3 жыл бұрын
The animations have the propellers spinning backwards. Reverse thrust?
@clarkjohnson3249
@clarkjohnson3249 3 жыл бұрын
The XC-99 never was in the Mojave but was at Kelly AFB, then moved to the USAF Museum several years ago. The photo of it broken up is outside the Museum’s restoration facility.
@PaulStewartAviation
@PaulStewartAviation 3 жыл бұрын
Great video. I've never been able to find an explanation of why they put the props behind the wing instead of in front of it like every other aircraft from the era?
@FoundAndExplained
@FoundAndExplained 3 жыл бұрын
Good question!
@mightymystery9204
@mightymystery9204 3 жыл бұрын
Paul Stewart, the reason for the engines' pusher configuration was streamlining and strength, as the swept wing would have required long nacelles. That would mean more vulnerable structure, and more drag. If, by chance, a propellor "got away", there would be no chance of wing damage.
@Siryn
@Siryn 3 жыл бұрын
The XC99 sat out here at Lackland AFB (formerly Kelly AFB) for years.
@matthewslee910
@matthewslee910 3 жыл бұрын
Nice video as always. And by the way, have you thought about doing a video of Phil Pauley's 4 deck monster jumbo concept I showed you not too long ago or at least something similar about plane with 4 decks in general? Just a yes or no question. ;)
@ogzephyr4166
@ogzephyr4166 3 жыл бұрын
Commercial B-36, I like it
@downix
@downix 2 ай бұрын
I still would have loved to have seen the planned turboprops for the B-36, although today we could use unducted fans instead.
@terryherrera5252
@terryherrera5252 3 жыл бұрын
In the “60’s” we climb through one of these at Kelly A. F. Base in San Antonio,TeXaS !!
@danielocarey9392
@danielocarey9392 2 ай бұрын
climbed.
@justtruth8281
@justtruth8281 2 ай бұрын
I got to tour the XC 99 multiple times at Kelly Air Force Base.
@leezinke4351
@leezinke4351 3 жыл бұрын
if they add the XC-99 for FS2020. I would love to fly this gorgeous plane.
@RedWolf777SG
@RedWolf777SG 3 жыл бұрын
Got to say it's a good looking push prop plane.
@burningb2439
@burningb2439 3 жыл бұрын
Never liked those Wing intakes trying to feed the Engines , but it still looked better as the B36 .
@ouroboris
@ouroboris 3 жыл бұрын
Around 3:40 I noticed that the props are turning backwards... Excellent video though!
@tootired76
@tootired76 3 жыл бұрын
I'm weird. I think the B 36 and this version are two of the prettiest planes ever made!! The B 36 never fired a shot in anger!! That's why it earn the unofficial name of "Peacemaker"!!
@danielocarey9392
@danielocarey9392 2 ай бұрын
That was the official title other than B-36. The other (unofficial) title was "Big Stick."
@elliotdryden7560
@elliotdryden7560 3 жыл бұрын
At 7:50 did he say "Davies Mothman outside of Tuscon"? What a cool name for a boneyard! I want to be a docent there! :) Cool video!
@williamwingo4740
@williamwingo4740 3 жыл бұрын
The XC-99 was on display At Lackland/Kelly AFB from 1957 to 2004. I toured it in 1967. The thing was absolutely huge. Even the C-5 a few years later and Howard Hughes' Hercules flying boat a few years after that didn't make such an impression. The wings, tail, and engines were B-36, and the fuselage was two B-36's, one on top of the other. It served extensively through the Korean war, mostly ferrying aircraft parts around the U.S. and setting several records. But it was too slow to compete with jets and they retired it in 1957. It was ferried to Wright-Patterson AFB in pieces for restoration, but it had so much magnesium in it that 47 years of corrosion damage made this impractical [1]. At present, the parts are in storage at Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson [2]. 1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_XC-99 2. wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=32.149210&lon=-110.844508&z=17&m=bh&search=XC-99
@whatever8282828
@whatever8282828 3 жыл бұрын
nine hours to london! wow!
@alanpope179
@alanpope179 3 жыл бұрын
For years the hulk of the XB-99 sat at the end of the runway at Kelly AFB in San Antonio!
@dave8599
@dave8599 3 жыл бұрын
324 spark plugs, imagine having to change them after each flight
@keithammleter3824
@keithammleter3824 3 жыл бұрын
6 engines x 28 cylinders x 2 plugs per cylinder = 336 plugs. That's one of the factors that led to the B36 being withdrawn very early - it just took too much labour to keep flight ready. See my first post.
@nobodyknows3180
@nobodyknows3180 3 жыл бұрын
@@keithammleter3824 6 turnin' and 4 burnin' as they used to say - that's a lot to maintain. My dad went into the USAF to become an aircraft maintenance specialist because he dearly loved the design of the B-36 and used to watch them all the time out in Alberqueque, NM. We got to hear all the stories. Years later we were driving somewhere in Ft. Worth, Texas and my Dad literally screamed "There's a Big Stick!" to which half of us looked at the road ahead, and the rest of us looked behind, and thought what the hell is he talking about?!?? Turns out, there was a hanger, or warehouse next to the highway, and on the other side of it was an old B-36 parked there, and the only reason my dad spotted it was because the tail was so high. We got off the road and went to see it, of course, my dad was beside himself for the rest of the day. [Edit: since I made this comment, I have researched that B-36, it was at Amon Carter Field, later known as Greater Southwest International Airport (which was replaced in the 70's by the much larger DFW International Airport only a few miles north) and that particular B-36 was called The City of Fort Worth, it was the very LAST B-36 ever built, so when the USAF decommissioned it, it was gifted to Fort Worth. From Amon Carter Field, it was moved to a place called the B-36 Peacekeeper Museum (still exists), but they couldn't handle the upkeep, so it was moved to Pima Air & Space Museum in Tucson, Arizona, where it is today. It is owned by the National Museum of the USAF]
@jasoncentore1830
@jasoncentore1830 3 жыл бұрын
I would like to do that as much as getting a work order to tint the windows on an A380
@AaronCMounts
@AaronCMounts 3 жыл бұрын
@@nobodyknows3180 More like 2 turnin', 2 burnin', 2 smokin', 2 chokin', and 2 unaccounted for. Those P&W 28-cylinder engines were horrible for reliability.
@nobodyknows3180
@nobodyknows3180 3 жыл бұрын
@@AaronCMounts 🤣🤣🤣
@brentboswell1294
@brentboswell1294 3 жыл бұрын
Looks surprisingly like a B-36 Peacemaker wing...
@toasterhavingabath6980
@toasterhavingabath6980 3 жыл бұрын
W o n d e r W h y
@michaelmckinnon7314
@michaelmckinnon7314 2 жыл бұрын
The B-36 Peacekeeper, mistakenly referred to as Peacemaker nowadays. Peacemaker won the contest for naming the B-36, but with the Cold War on Convair decided to name the aircraft Peacekeeper because if the Soviets heard about a nuclear bomber named Peacemaker they could get the wrong impression and start WWIII and because Convair had already figured that out, that's why the contest winner wasn't chosen by Convair despite the dress rehearsal video making the rounds on KZfaq.
@danielocarey9392
@danielocarey9392 2 ай бұрын
You're probably are very smart. But your statement is not clear. I don't know what you are talking about.
@casualsleepingdragon8501
@casualsleepingdragon8501 3 жыл бұрын
The b-36 looks like the pokémon evolution the b-29
@tgmccoy1556
@tgmccoy1556 3 жыл бұрын
I flew copilot on a DC7 Airtanker for 9 years. Back in the 90's. I remember flying out of Fairbanks (Ft. Wainwright) With Hawkins and Powers KC97 converted tanker. 4000 gallons of retardant. Also they had many carcasses of 4360s on the field. Mostly spares, some fresh. Some dead. They were pretty good at keeping the 97 going. Like the DC-7 Wright 3350s if you didn't push them they weren't too unreliable.🙄
@sierraromeo
@sierraromeo 3 жыл бұрын
Still have my Hawkins & Powers beltbuckle purchased at the Greybull Wyoming operation. Saw Jet assisted boxcars, KC-97's , piles of QEC's, and I think the B-24 privateer, single vertical stab. This was 1986, summer.
@tgmccoy1556
@tgmccoy1556 3 жыл бұрын
@@sierraromeo good friend of mine flew Boxcars for H&P called the Jet the. Defueler. As well as providing power it lightened the fuel load considerably 😊.
@sierraromeo
@sierraromeo 3 жыл бұрын
@@tgmccoy1556 The C-123 had two jet engines, and the "turtle" Neptune also had two, I suppose they were used in all phases of flight, other wise, they were creating massive drag.
@diGritz1
@diGritz1 3 жыл бұрын
For propeller insanity I'd have to go with the Tupolev TU-95 AKA: Bear. Though it has only 4 engines each one has 2 contra-rotating props. The prop tips spin faster then the speed of sound which makes this thing one of the loudest aircraft ever built.
@danielocarey9392
@danielocarey9392 2 ай бұрын
True. But the XFY1 Convair turboprop was faster at 610 MPH.
@andyrendell7430
@andyrendell7430 3 жыл бұрын
Nerdy question- would a push- prop, rather than pull from the front, have the same ability to thrust air aft over the wing and give direct lift assistance? Perhaps less,but still some? Amazing vid,thanks
@rolandogamez
@rolandogamez 3 жыл бұрын
7:33 The Aircraft was stored/displayed at Kelley AFB in San Antonio from the 1960s to 1990s.
@ta192utube
@ta192utube 3 жыл бұрын
There in '63...you could climb through it and I did; quite impressive.
@dave8599
@dave8599 2 жыл бұрын
Whoa,..... it has "a five cockpit crew"!
@lorenamansillagoyeneche8920
@lorenamansillagoyeneche8920 3 жыл бұрын
You must make a video about the Ayaks, a hypersonic waverider aircraft program started in the Soviet Union. An abandoned project.
@terryheard3011
@terryheard3011 3 жыл бұрын
Wright-Patterson is located in Ohio near Dayton. Famous for a couple of brothers.
@ghost307
@ghost307 3 жыл бұрын
The Patterson brothers?
@daviddunsmore103
@daviddunsmore103 3 жыл бұрын
@@ghost307 LOL 😂
@MrTaxiRob
@MrTaxiRob 2 жыл бұрын
a couple of bicycle mechanics, they probably wore skinny pants and drank craft beer
@danielocarey9392
@danielocarey9392 2 ай бұрын
And their father was a United Brethren pastor who said "If man was meant to fly, God would have given them wings." Funny, ist't it?
@danielocarey9392
@danielocarey9392 2 ай бұрын
@@ghost307 No. Orvil and Wilber Wright.
@bernhardecklin7005
@bernhardecklin7005 3 жыл бұрын
Thank you for the fine and very informative video. At 1:16 a small but relevant slip of the tongue:It is said to be named "Pacemaker" however correct is PEACEMAKER. No offense of course.
@kittenastrophy5951
@kittenastrophy5951 3 жыл бұрын
Clip of XC-99 has been on KZfaq for so long time. I saw it might be 7 years back.
@artic9514
@artic9514 3 жыл бұрын
The pacemaker powered by pistol engines! When one take recording is life?
@danielocarey9392
@danielocarey9392 2 ай бұрын
True. They needed to have someone listen to it first.
@mickhall88
@mickhall88 3 жыл бұрын
I'm guessing all the errors in this one are intentional. It ups the number of comments, keeping KZfaq happy. Well you can have this one for free.... You're welcome 😊
@nosnibor800
@nosnibor800 3 жыл бұрын
Like the Brabazon
@deltavee2
@deltavee2 3 жыл бұрын
2:49 Love that the toilet is a bucket. 6:50 Boack? B.O.A.C. perhaps?
@itsjohndell
@itsjohndell 3 жыл бұрын
I believe the Navy received a few of these and operated them longer than the Air Force. The AMARG or bone yard is at Davis(Pronounced like Bette Davis)-Monthan AFB. the Pima County Air and Space Museum is just across the road and while they have a B-36J I hope the C-99 will join it.
@danielocarey9392
@danielocarey9392 2 ай бұрын
No. The XC-99 was just one airframe. But the navy did fly Convair Tradewinds.
@blainemilliron3870
@blainemilliron3870 3 жыл бұрын
in 79 on the back road the back road between secutry hill and main base kelly afb tx there was a miltary version seting in a feld to be made a exibation mussim so there had to be 2 because this one was in civ hands
@danielocarey9392
@danielocarey9392 2 ай бұрын
No. Just one airplane.
@cbmech2563
@cbmech2563 3 жыл бұрын
Convair...we need something to keep the b36 assembly line going. Civilian airport........your too heavy to land here. The runway for the b36 was 8ft of aggregate and 4 ft of concrete
@daviddunsmore103
@daviddunsmore103 3 жыл бұрын
I wonder how that compares to what's required for a 747 or A380? 🤔
@cbmech2563
@cbmech2563 3 жыл бұрын
@@daviddunsmore103 more tires, less pounds per square inch of tire contact area, so 🤔? Also the military does tend to take everything to the extreme.
@danielocarey9392
@danielocarey9392 2 ай бұрын
....you're
@cbmech2563
@cbmech2563 2 ай бұрын
@@danielocarey9392 I'm sorry that my auto correct bothered you
@danielocarey9392
@danielocarey9392 2 ай бұрын
@@cbmech2563 It does it to me too. I'm sorry.
@DeHama77
@DeHama77 3 жыл бұрын
The other factor with this aircraft was the it required reinforced concrete runways of sufficient depth, length, and width to support it's weight. This is the reason why the XC-99 was primarily confined to runs between Tinker AFB and Travis AFB during its active duty life. Most airports could not have supported repeated landings and takeoffs and would have required expensive improvements to support the Model 37. Foreshadowing the A-380 's similar issues and limitations, this aircraft was simply too large for the infrastructure of most airports.
@sierraromeo
@sierraromeo 3 жыл бұрын
The single main wheels caused the runway issue, after conversion to dual tandem each side, the issue was resolved
@765kvline
@765kvline 3 жыл бұрын
Adding the later four jet engines to the B-36 civilian counterpart might have made a difference in its deployment for public acceptance and airline use.
@rpsmith2990
@rpsmith2990 3 жыл бұрын
Another factor in this plane not entering service probably is similar to why Pan American didn't fly the Republic RC-2 (airliner version of the XF or later XR-12 Rainbow). With a lack of military interest and of sales from other airlines, the development costs would have made the plane very expensive. Either aircraft would have been very interesting to see in service.
@nucflashevent
@nucflashevent 2 жыл бұрын
It's likely just as well the Model 37 didn't take off (speaking to the quick move after the war to pure-jet airliners) BUT you can't help but wonder how much different things would have been if it had...speaking to the kind of flights we've come to expect from planes like the 747 but around 10-15 years earlier. The only thing that would make me nervous would be what kind of inflight entertainment these planes would have because keep in mind even though the Model 37 could cover roughly the same range as a modern 747, it would be flying at less than half the speed 😬😜
@StevieinSF
@StevieinSF 3 жыл бұрын
The XC-99 was successful with the USAF as a transport aircraft during its stint in the service. The drawback with the XC-99 and B-36 was its engines. They were temperamental, consumed oil, had cooling issues and were slow. Convair was a forward thinking aircraft builder, if they had turbo-props available which would've had the right efficiencies, the military and civilian versions would've been better off. A pure turbojet version would have consumed so much fuel and that technology wasn't fully developed either.
@blakena4907
@blakena4907 3 жыл бұрын
Even the names of the models of its engines are ridiculously complex.
@brucebaxter6923
@brucebaxter6923 3 жыл бұрын
top rate video. bit confused why there is a leading edge shape between the engines though
@nobodyknows3180
@nobodyknows3180 3 жыл бұрын
Do you mean on the trailing edge? It could be just an optical illusion from the CGI. I've looked at images of the XC99/Convair 37 and as near I can tell from the available ass-end shots, the trailing edge is knife-edged. The whole idea of having a pusher aircraft is to avoid turbulent prop wash flowing over the wing - this contributes drag and decreases lift - so to avoid this, minimize drag (thus increasing cruise range, which is good for a strategic bomber design) and increase lift (more payload, also good for a bomber design) they went with a pusher design. But aside from that, the standard wing design would apply. Can't think of any reason they'd have rounding on the trailing edge along any part of the wing, let alone on control surfaces such as flaps or ailerons, and given that the pusher engines took up a lot of trailing edge, they probably needed all the space in between the engines for flaps.
@brucebaxter6923
@brucebaxter6923 3 жыл бұрын
@@nobodyknows3180 thanks, it was a joke about the render issue, its clear that the nacelles are reused from a puller aircraft
@jamespfitz
@jamespfitz 3 жыл бұрын
"... a future that next was"? That's as sad as a past that never will be.
This Plane Is CURSED - The Forgotten Flying Wing…
19:06
Found And Explained
Рет қаралды 1 МЛН
The plane with a propeller at each end - Nazi Dornier 335
11:56
Found And Explained
Рет қаралды 615 М.
My little bro is funny😁  @artur-boy
00:18
Andrey Grechka
Рет қаралды 11 МЛН
Sigma Girl Past #funny #sigma #viral
00:20
CRAZY GREAPA
Рет қаралды 27 МЛН
Children deceived dad #comedy
00:19
yuzvikii_family
Рет қаралды 7 МЛН
Пробую самое сладкое вещество во Вселенной
00:41
The Flying Pancake - Slowest Plane Ever Made!
15:42
Found And Explained
Рет қаралды 1,9 МЛН
Boeing's Forgotten Failure
12:07
Found And Explained
Рет қаралды 423 М.
What ever happened to Cargo Submarines?
10:25
Found And Explained
Рет қаралды 1,6 МЛН
Terrifying Flying Submarine - The Convair Nuclear Submersible Ramjet
10:54
Found And Explained
Рет қаралды 342 М.
Are BOEING planning a 747 with 2 ENGINES?!
18:42
Mentour Now!
Рет қаралды 1,5 МЛН
Cold War Motoring: The Communist Cars of the Soviet Union
22:06
Ed's Auto Reviews
Рет қаралды 306 М.
The Shortest Lived Mega Bomber You Never Heard Of - Convair YB-60
10:39
CRAZY Passenger Nose Door - The Baby 747 Saab 1073
12:38
Found And Explained
Рет қаралды 215 М.
My little bro is funny😁  @artur-boy
00:18
Andrey Grechka
Рет қаралды 11 МЛН