The Forgotten First Jetliner (Until It Was Betrayed)

No video

The Forgotten First Jetliner (Until It Was Betrayed) - F26 Phantom

Рет қаралды 460,863

Жыл бұрын

Go to ground.news/found to stay up to date on all sides of breaking news. Check it out for free or subscribe for 30% off unlimited access before March 20.
Images of the Paris Air Show, Livery, Concept Art and scale model were taken from International Resin Modellers Association: Do check them out they do great work!
internationalre...
NEW CHANNEL:
• Launched from the bigg...
Discord: / discord
My News Channel: / @aviationstationyt
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @foundandexplained
Patreon:
/ foundandexplained
Welcome to our video about the Fokker F-26 Phantom, the first jetliner that never made it to production. In the aftermath of World War II, Fokker, once a dominant manufacturer of passenger aircraft, teamed up with Dutch airline KLM and the Dutch National Institute for Aircraft Development to come up with a design for a jetliner. The F26 was unveiled at the 1946 Paris Air Show, where it generated a lot of interest but no orders.
The F26 Phantom's design included a low-wing layout with a 17-seat pressurized fuselage, fully retractable gear, and two Rolls-Royce Nene RB.41 series I jet engines. The engines, with a thrust of 23 kN each, were the most powerful available at that time. The passenger cabin had a single aisle layout, with two seats abreast on the right and a single row on the left. A toilet was located at the rear of the plane, and there were two cargo bays.
Despite the potential of the F26 design, KLM's executive Mr Plesman believed that producing a jetliner was too big a project for Fokker alone and pushed for cooperation with British manufacturer de Havilland. However, this cooperation mainly focused on engine-related issues, and no combined effort in producing jetliners ever took place. Fokker went on to develop the more feasible design, the F27 Friendship.
The F26 Phantom was never intended to become a reality, but its significance lies in its early appearance as a jet-powered aircraft when no jet-powered passenger aircraft were designed. The all-metal F26 design was meant to be a technical and economic feasibility study only. The aircraft was designed for a flight crew of three people, including two pilots and one radio operator.
This video includes specifications of the Fokker F26 Phantom, such as the cruise speed of 800 km/h, a range of 1,000 km, and the estimated dimensions of the aircraft. Although the F26 Phantom never made it to production, its design and innovations laid the foundation for future jetliners. Thank you for watching!

Пікірлер: 731

@FoundAndExplained Жыл бұрын

Go to ground.news/found to stay up to date on all sides of breaking news. Check it out for free or subscribe for 30% off unlimited access before March 20 ALSO Doing some flight reviews on my Instagram: instagram.com/njcummins/ Follow me now :)

@MCDrB-wq8ed Жыл бұрын

You mentioned German and US jet fighters but completely ignored the British ones, especially considering that the US P80 used the British De Haviland Goblin engine!

@lenadams854 Жыл бұрын

How about the MBB Lampyridae?

@Paladinite Жыл бұрын

Hi! Can you do a vid on the Tu-244 pls :)

@ground_news Жыл бұрын

Thank you for sharing, happy to support! For anyone interested, check out the link above and let us know if you have any questions.

@motopanza Жыл бұрын

great vid but please don't call a nene a néné ever again 🤣

@SHARPSPEED Жыл бұрын

Ah, nothing like seeing Found & Explained pop up in my feed, see the thumbnail, and think to myself "what the actual hell is THAT?"

@FoundAndExplained Жыл бұрын

I really enjoy finding a plane no one has ever heard of every

@snegik Жыл бұрын

@@FoundAndExplained you and Ed Nash should do a collab video

@goatcat2737 Жыл бұрын

I legitimately said out loud when I saw this "oh god what the fuck is that"

@kendenning6517 Жыл бұрын

This was actually a good design. 6000lbs total weight is unbelievable compared 2 it's size. Plus it would've been the 1st production jet airliner. But with the Coment and a little later the 707 being larger with a higher passenger capacity it would've been quickly over taken it in sales. So it's best that it never went into production. A wise choice.

@mrt-lz4cw Жыл бұрын

Really? Omg. Omg omg. Poor thumbnail😢😢😢

@nenuu91iscool Жыл бұрын

this plane looks a bit goofy but I think that gives it a nice charm

@williamzk9083 Жыл бұрын

The F-26 Jet I think would have been a commercial failure but the F-27 Turboprop really was ingenious and a great success for the company.

@pascalcoole2725 Жыл бұрын

Hey !!! If it looks like a duck and kwaks like a duck, it's probarbly a Fokker !

@jtjames79 Жыл бұрын

It would look perfect in the Fallout universe.

@kylietravers3466 Жыл бұрын

Your a anti-furry!

@Otokichi786 Жыл бұрын

With the air intakes so close to the ground, FOD would be a problem. Airports would have to have a sweeper/vacuum sanitize the runway just before each Fokker F26 began a takeoff roll.

@thewitch7342 Жыл бұрын

it's not that big of a problem really, look at how low the boeing 737 engines are positioned under the wings. also FOD are more likely to appear far form the center of the runway and having engines under the fuselage would help mitigate the risk of injecting debris

@carlosandleon Жыл бұрын

they're as low as any others plane

@secondsein7749 Жыл бұрын

FOD is lesser of the priority issue compared to others really. Any catastrophic failure of the engines increases casualty rate of the plane due to main body being so close to the engine. Imagine being hit with a major bird strike and a shrapnel escape the engine cage and into the cockpit. Also have to imagine what would happen if an emergency landing without the landing gears and the engines exploded.

@Demonslayer20111 Жыл бұрын

@@secondsein7749 that's an issue with almost every modern day airliner. They ALL have underslung engines, just on the wings instead of the fuselage. The only exceptions are regional jets like the MD 80

@umi3017 Жыл бұрын

Since the intake is in front of nose gear, there is really not much FOD to be throw into, just like F16.

@LastGoatKnight Жыл бұрын

Now this plane is what I like to call a "jet sitting" aircraft. Because if the landing gears fail the plane would rest on its engines

@comradedog4075 Жыл бұрын

Imagine having to belly land that thing after your landing gear fails to go down.

@LastGoatKnight Жыл бұрын

@@comradedog4075 yeah, I mean, for example, the Me 262 at least just a fighter and the engines are on the wings so it can be damaged "safely" a.k.a. without major problems to the mainframe (at max the wings would break, away from the pilot). This plane is meant to be a commercial airliner. And the engines are also positioned upwards, so landing on them makes the plane nosedive which is not the best. And these problems are just the tip of the iceberg. If one engine (for some reason) has a catastrophic failure it WILL most likely damage the crew compartment and/or the passengers. On a wing it's okay, you turn it off and continue onward. On these kind of planes there is a chance to the damaged engine also damages the other one and there are no detaching capabilities or half thrust. If one engine explodes, the plane will break in half.

@jacksons1010 Жыл бұрын

Isn’t that true of most jetliners, other than those with engines mounted on the empennage?

@LastGoatKnight Жыл бұрын

@@jacksons1010 technically yes, but I meant to those planes which has their engine(s) close to or on the fuselage (and underneath)

@dwightpries8330 Жыл бұрын

I imagine that would have been quite “exciting”, having two large spinning jet engines grind themselves flat directly underneath the feet of the flight crew. I hope the plans were to have reinforced floors. Nothing like pieces of sheared turbine piercing the deck during an emergency landing to add a little spice to the situation.

@EricIrl Жыл бұрын

The engine naime "Nene" is not pronounced "Nay Nay". It's pronounced "Neen". Rolls Royce have a tradition of calling their jet engines after British rivers Conway, Tay, Trent, Spey etc.

@7ADR Жыл бұрын

nay nay does sound funnier

@DaBlazesUSay Жыл бұрын

Nene, pronounced "nay nay", refers to an endangered goose native to Hawaii.

@ridhosamudro2199 Жыл бұрын

Oh it's like "meme" again

@polygondwanaland8390 Жыл бұрын

Nay nay is my favourite may may

@hilman94 Жыл бұрын

when you disapprove something, you will say nay nay...

@rolanddutton Жыл бұрын

Great video. I hadn't heard of the F.26. Nene is pronounced "Neen" (or Nen in some parts of England) btw. Rolls Royce named their jets after UK rivers.

@mastathrash5609 Жыл бұрын

I didnt either, and I was Not expecting it to be Fokker, I was banking on it being a DC-3 with twin "RR NayNays" strapped under it. 😄 never heard it said like that, and it gave me a chuckle.

@Mishn0 Жыл бұрын

I got that wrong for years. I grew up in Hawaii where the state bird is a native flightless goose called the Nene. In Hawaiian, it IS pronounced Nay-Nay!

@towgod7985 Жыл бұрын

FINALLY, ........a commentator who knows something about aviation. Thank you.

@kevincarlson4562 Жыл бұрын

Thanks,as a little Yank kid I had aviation books from the UK.I instinctually knew what Rolls Royce Avon was named after.Nene had me baffled,though,hadn't heard of that river.Wonder if it's any coincidence that some US TSA officers are named Sha Nay Nay.

@hekatoncheiros208 Жыл бұрын

Nene, Welland, Trent, Avon and Spey. Probably a few others as well.

@mohabatkhanmalak1161 Жыл бұрын

I think it would have worked and flown very efficiently, the designers thought out of the box. Just looking at it in this clip, the engineers must have located the fuel tanks in that free space between the two engines, thus leaving the wings lighter. So, they would have added more strenghth there to withstand the higher speed. And about the landing gear, they probably had a manual pump, one located below the flight deck and one or two inbetween the wings, in the free space. Other good ideas I like about this concept are that the controls for the engines, cables and levers would travel short distances from the cockpit to the engines.

@JWQweqOPDH Жыл бұрын

It can be beneficial to move weight to the wings since that is the source of lift during flight. For example, fighters tend to locate drop tanks half way down the wing.

@twistedyogert Жыл бұрын

I could also imagine that it would be easier to replace an engine or remove it for repair. The Comet had the engines buried in the wings. It looks like if one needed to remove or replace one they would have to remove the wing or at least detach the skin. There's a reason why a lot of modern jet airliners like the 737 or A320 have the engines mounted underneath the wing.

@Mishn0 Жыл бұрын

@@JWQweqOPDH Yes, carrying the weight in the wings removes the load of that weight from the wingroots. But, I imagine they'd have to carry fuel in both the space between the engines AND the wings if they wanted any useful range out of the design burdened with those first generation jet engines.

@FlywithMagnar Жыл бұрын

It would not be a good idea to locate the fuel tanks between the engines. In order to maintain the center of gravity within given limitations, the fuel tanks must be placed close to the center of gravity. Having fuel tanks in the wings is a good solution, as the weight of the fuel will reduce the bending moments between the wings and the fuselage. At 0:43 you see the text "Reservoirs a carburant contenant au total 4000 L" next to the wing. That's the fuel.

@TheDwightMamba Жыл бұрын

I also think it's not the greatest idea to put the fuel adjacent to 2 jet engines fuel has been used as coolant in many jets, but the tanks never rest next to the combustion chambers.

@FoundAndExplained Жыл бұрын

Images of the Paris Air Show, Livery, Concept Art and scale model were taken from International Resin Modellers Association: Do check them out they do great work! internationalresinmodellers.com/articles_19_fokker_f26_phantom

@edwardbottomsworth366 Жыл бұрын

I've been watching this channel since almost the start and the difference in animation is insane. Great work!

@alexbrewer4570 Жыл бұрын

It looks like a C-47 Dakota with some jet engines slapped on.

@JBofBrisbane Жыл бұрын

Actually more like a Curtis C-46 Commando.

@alexbrewer4570 Жыл бұрын

@@JBofBrisbane haha, whups! That's what I was thinking, and was too confident to double check. So thanks for correcting me.

@arobatto Жыл бұрын

In 2:06 you mentioned that at the end of WWII, jet aircraft was severely limited to German designs and emerging American aircraft but completely dismissed Great Britain’s Gloster Meteor!

@aurorajones8481 Жыл бұрын

Yea cause the Meteor sucked and it was late to the party and thus... quite lame. (sorry you opened the door i had to) 🤣 That comment was harsh but true.

@uingaeoc3905 Жыл бұрын

@@aurorajones8481 Utter twaddle, so I will put you right - Meteors took part in the European theatre, so were not late and they were exported in huge numbers after the war, so did not 'suck' . Also UK jet engines were more advanced than Germany's because of metallurgical knowledge and advances. The German JuMo and BMWs etc had usages in just hours and a few sorties. That is why the US early jet planes used UK engines, as indeed did the Russians, they actually bought them, Nenes and Derwents for the MiG-15. The USAF still do so eg look at the B-52 re-engining project.. Also, more twaddle from you, what US jet took part in WW2?

@tgcrowson Жыл бұрын

@@aurorajones8481 hardly lame. It held the world airspeed record for a while and actually saw combat service, unlike the only US aircraft with jet engines; The Lockheed Shooting Star. Also entering RAF service from 1946.

@danielfritts854 Жыл бұрын

It's mentioned

@Mishn0 Жыл бұрын

Uh-oh, the Brittards are getting their feathers ruffled!

@tonitadros3802 Жыл бұрын

2:33 That MEA comet hit me with that nostalgia

@Kishanth.J Жыл бұрын

This sort of reminds me of the Avro Canada C102 jetliner. The jet that almost beat the comet

@mikeholland1031 Жыл бұрын

It did. The Comet was seriously flawed so doesn't count.

@martingreen8049 Жыл бұрын

Yes, the actual Jetliner.

@captlazer5509 Жыл бұрын

Cool jet design that even Howard Hughes was bonkers for. Then it was cut up, brilliant. 😑

@mikeholland1031 Жыл бұрын

The problem was Korea. We couldn't go fight and support the program at the time. Too much money. Sad

@captlazer5509 Жыл бұрын

@@mikeholland1031 it could have had a storage hanger built for it, much like any other experimental plane.

@tflemming287 Жыл бұрын

Did he just call the Rolls Royce engine the 'nay nay'? 😂

@pigpilot7275 Жыл бұрын

He did...

@sipsofhell9018 Жыл бұрын

from the side it looks like its a well endowed man, from the front it looks like a well endowed woman. And its a Fokker. Perfect!

@letsseeif Жыл бұрын

Not the 'me262'. The correct pronunciation is the EM EE 262 or Messerschmidt 262.. thanks for the video.

@MTTT1234 Жыл бұрын

Damn, pumping out so many amazing videos, you are just awesome. You sometimes should think about making a video of an alternate timeline where some of the designs you showed us here came to be, and what kind of amazing aircraft this would have produced in our alternate present.

@samuelmillerick205 Жыл бұрын

They were also British jet aircraft at the time. Not just American and German.

@liamjackson6930 Жыл бұрын

glad you noticed that as well, was just about to comment on that, also the fact that the Americans would not of had a jet if it was not for the British supplying them with the jet engine

@tomcline5631 Жыл бұрын

Germans or Soviets wouldn't either if the Germans hadn't bought engine designs and the Soviets hadn't stole em! The US' first jet used American engines,adapted from the English engine designs. The P-56 Aerocomet or something like that. Then the P-80,which had a whole American engine design.

@Mishn0 Жыл бұрын

@@liamjackson6930 Bullshit. Westinghouse, Lockheed, Allison and GE were all designing their own engines before we got the Whittle engine. It's not a big leap from a steam turbine to a gas turbine, merely combusters and metallurgy.

@andrewallen9993 Жыл бұрын

@@Mishn0 the ease with which metallurgical and combustor problems may be solved explains why Frank Whittle was able to make a working jet engine so quickly. Oh, hang on a minute that probably explains the ease with which US manufacturers were able to build theirs.

@Mishn0 Жыл бұрын

@@andrewallen9993 That and we had been building turbo-superchargers for more than a decade. It's a tiny leap from a turbo-supercharger to a turbojet engine. The reason it took as long as it did was bureaucratic inertia. They thought they weren't needed. Same thing in Britain, the RAF wasn't interested until they found out that the Germans were working on them. Only then did Whittle get any money.

@_Makanko_ Жыл бұрын

Lovely plane. Great coverage and story telling.

@johnjensen2217 Жыл бұрын

When I first saw the picture it looked like they had slapped a couple of the German JUMO engines under the fuselage of a DC3 😊.

@Mishn0 Жыл бұрын

More like a C-46, Curtiss Commando.

@ElectricUAM Жыл бұрын

Groundnews, AllSides, great ways to see the news as is and not as is delivered :) What a gorgeous design. It's so simple and perfect in an original way. I love it.

@Happymali10 Жыл бұрын

Are the engines really entirely behind the front wheels? Because it kinda looks more like the wheels would be between the intakes.

@raymondclark1785 Жыл бұрын

The intakes are forward enough anything thrown up by the wheels would miss but FOD would be a problem. Sell jet airliners was a hard sell, even Boeing had trouble until the 1st airline placed an order. Then everyone jumped on board. With so few seats this would have made a good business jet but that market hadn't started yet

@KevinSiebert Жыл бұрын

The music at the beginning is amazing!! It sounds so tropical! I remember this opening music from Cities Skylines Seenu

@fritzmuller8246 Жыл бұрын

Gorgeous fuselage . They made such beautiful things in the 50s. What a beautiful little Fokker

@Geoff31818 Жыл бұрын

Erm by wars end the British had the meteor in service and the vampire not far off plus the Canberra in development

@justintime5021 Жыл бұрын

My favorite thing about this channel is the beginning of every video where I'm always like "wtf is that thing"

@joshuaconti989 Жыл бұрын

i would love to build and fly one of these now despite the apparent flaws- its still a looker of an aircraft =)

@SMGJohn Жыл бұрын

Damn thing even got the windows right. Fokke, always ahead

@artrandy Жыл бұрын

I suppose that's why it became "defunct" in 1996................?

@mirthenary Жыл бұрын

My 1st reaction was, it looks sort of like a C46 commando with jet engines strapped under it

@shooter575 Жыл бұрын

My first thought also.

@RickPMandel Жыл бұрын

A great story with incredible graphics! Good Job, one and all!

@apokalipsx25 Жыл бұрын

So far as i remember the avro lancastrian could be the first jetliner. It was a modified for passengers lancaster with two piston engines and two jet engines. UK Aircraft Explored has a good video about this plane. Would be nice to hear what your meaning abot this hybrid plane.

@bigvinny333 Жыл бұрын

Yes and the Gloster Pioneer first flew in May 1941.

@JBofBrisbane Жыл бұрын

There was only ever one Lancastrian so modified - the others all had the original four Merlins. There were also variants of Vickers Viscount and Viking that were given turbojets, but they were one-offs for research as well.

@bigvinny333 Жыл бұрын

@@JBofBrisbane MkII Lancasters had Bristol Hercules radial engines.

@Geoff31818 Жыл бұрын

@05:31 you pronounce the engine name “nay-nay” it’s not that it’s pronounced “neen” after the river nene

@HootOwl513 Жыл бұрын

Wow totally surprizing. I thought we were seeing some jet turbines strapped under a Curtiss C-46 Commando.

@whynot64928 Жыл бұрын

Meteor anyone. Not German, not US ...

@scottnj2503 Жыл бұрын

PilotPhotog mentioned your channel to me. Despite decades of following aviation history. This was totally news to me. I'm looking forward to explore your channel and seeing new content.

@asthalis Жыл бұрын

Never heard of this curious plane, thanks for this video !

@andysmith4394 Жыл бұрын

I really enjoyed watching that something I never new 🤙🏻🇬🇧

@lucrolland7489 Жыл бұрын

The plane image is in French, quite interesting indeed. You should make the story of the Avro Canada Jetliner II which flew one month after the Comet and proved that regional airplanes could exist but Canada did not see it this way as nobody would be crazy enough to fly jet airplanes.

@arno-luyendijk4798 Жыл бұрын

Two corrections: Anthony Fokker died in 1939, not 1936. And the KLM director's surname was PLESMAN, not PIELSMAN ('ples' like in 'wet').

@toonistiny Жыл бұрын

Dang, the Phantom II lookin' sick!

@Raminagrobisfr Жыл бұрын

This placement of jet engines must also be the worst possible in terms of cabin noise and vibrations 😅

@deepinthewoods8078 Жыл бұрын

Haha, as a native 🇧🇪 speaker of the Dutch language, the word 'vliegtuigontwikkeling' is very easy to pronounce. But i admit it must be a monstruous challenge for people who don't know Dutch...

@iamthebatmanxiii3574 Жыл бұрын

Yeah I'm Afrikaans which is pretty close to Dutch. But I know that especially those "Gs" are hard to pronounce for English speakers.

@deepinthewoods8078 Жыл бұрын

@@iamthebatmanxiii3574 Baie goeie opmerking...

@iamthebatmanxiii3574 Жыл бұрын

@@deepinthewoods8078 baie dankie.

@WayneKitching Жыл бұрын

Julle het my voorgespring!

@leolex1289 Жыл бұрын

These jokes about the imperial system will never get old.

@rickyrico80 Жыл бұрын

I heard recently they don't make 12 inch rulers any longer 🤷🏻‍♂️

@geoffreycodnett6570 Жыл бұрын

@@rickyrico80 Plenty old stock on sale then, as well as steel tapes for those needing longer measurements in either cm or orchestra.

@Ralph2 Жыл бұрын

Never heard of it but then it's pretty obscure, thanks for the story.

@mixonken4236 Жыл бұрын

I like this design. It would have made a great lear jet. It had great potential. I also like the British design. It too is a beautiful aircraft. It is too bad it had a problem in the stress points around the center, or wings. The folker reminds me of a D C 3 with jets strapped under the belly. Thanks for sharing..

@GRAHAMAUS Жыл бұрын

The Comet failures actually started at the corner of an antenna port "window" on the roof just behind the cockpit, not "the windows" as the popular myth has it. Though Comet's passenger window shapes were changed as a precaution once the cause was discovered, they were probably acceptably safe all along.

@matthewkurniawan4081 Жыл бұрын

Look like a photoshop of a skytrain and a boeing engine

@road8662 Жыл бұрын

2:36 MEA's old livery was gorgeous

@WhiteJarrah Жыл бұрын

Uploaded 13min ago. I don't usually get these so early. This plane looks like a literal interpretation of "riding the engine."

@FoundAndExplained Жыл бұрын

Back then it was about building seats around an engine rather than a plane

@lazarus2691 Жыл бұрын

There were actually some real airplanes built and flown with this sort of layout. A lot of early Russian fighter jets for example; such as the Yak 15, Yak 23, Sukhoi Su-15 (1949), Mig 9, and La-152. The Bell X-5 is another good example, based on the not-quite-finished Me P.1101. The Douglas F3D is another.

@mustang5132 Жыл бұрын

I made one of these in SimplePlanes. Never thought I would see it in a somewhat in-depth video on KZfaq

@jdmmike7225 Жыл бұрын

Great video dude. Such a cool looking aircraft. Tho I think you had a typo in your script, Anthony Fokker passed away in December 23rd, 1939 in New York City, not 1936. Love the video tho.

@matchrocket1702 Жыл бұрын

With the exception of the low-slung engines sucking in debris the Fokker design looked like a winner. It's a shame it was never built.

@francolittlewilliam Жыл бұрын

I think the engineers were drunk: if one engine catch fire all people are in the shit.

@harrybloom9213 Жыл бұрын

Wow! She's beautiful!

@CY5588 Жыл бұрын

This engine placement has advantage: if one burst the center of thrust is still closer to center of gravity making it easier to control in failure

@Mishn0 Жыл бұрын

Well, if one burst, you probably wouldn't care about the center of thrust, because the fuselage would be shredded and all the passengers would be hamburger meat.

@brunoedwards Жыл бұрын

Really enjoyed this video. I didn't know about this aircraft and am very grateful for the information. Some little inaccuracies in the script are mentioned below . What is your fact checking prosess?

@bonzibuddy4483 Жыл бұрын

I'm more of an aft Man myself, but that's quite a front view

@davidfindlay5014 8 ай бұрын

Interesting parallel to the story of the Avro Canada c.102 Jetliner, which first flew in 1949, just 13 days after the Comet!

@treystephens6166 Жыл бұрын

I love that design ‼️

@marcellocoppolecchia3046 Жыл бұрын

Questo mi mancava, tutto sommato ha una configurazione bella e fuori dal comune ... molto bello. Un saluto

@jamesstuart3346 Жыл бұрын

Outstanding video, thanks!. The engines appear to be as low-slung as a 737's so I don't think that would have been an issue

@zeppelinkiddy Жыл бұрын

With the forward landing gear behind the engine air intakes and the main gear far behind and off to either side, there wouldn't have been any problems with the landing gear kicking up stuff or a tire failure being ingested by the engines. While the low intakes are more likely to suck in junk especially during initial roll out during high power take off settings, at that time it would be no worse than what existing jet fighters were dealing with. So as one other person commented, and just like the military had already started doing at that time, civilian airports would have to keep their runways and taxiways cleaner that with prop planes. As an aside, when the 737 was re-engined with larger engines and to avoid replace the landing gear with much higher and heavier units, the bottom of those huge intakes were designed flat because they were so low to the runway. To minimize sucking things up, bottom cowl-mounted jets of air bled off from the engine, blast the ground in front of the intake to blow aside anything in the engine's path when the aircraft is moving on the taxi ways, taking off or after landing.

@lohikarhu734 Жыл бұрын

Thanks...never before heard!

@johnassal5838 Жыл бұрын

This is by far the most Fisher Price looking plane I've ever seen.

@johnslugger Жыл бұрын

*Those LOW intakes must make a real RUNWAY vacuum cleaner. No rocks on that runway!*

@zakkhuitema3748 Жыл бұрын

man thats one beautiful looking plane! i now have a new favourite concept plane

@lightspeedvictory Жыл бұрын

Requesting videos on the following: -switchblade aircraft designs such as the FA-37 Talon from the ‘05 movie “Stealth” or the X-02 Wyvern from the Ace Combat franchise (the concept, not the actual fighters I mentioned) -Super Tomcat-21 and ASF-14 -the NATF program as a whole -early ATF proposals -Sea Apache -F-20 Tigershark -Bae SABA -Lockheed Martin’s Advanced Technology Bomber proposal -Northrop’s proposal for what would become the F-117 Nighthawk -Interstate TDR

@REPOMAN24722 Жыл бұрын

The intakes are in front of the nose gear so its all good. Sick looking plane tho, much cooler then the 737. Fokker could have been Airbus before Airbus.

@zacktong8105 Жыл бұрын

Given the reliable history of these post war Fokker aircraft this wasn't unreasonable.

@hannojaanniidas9655 Жыл бұрын

I recall a documentary on a jet-powered passenger plan built in Canada by either deHavilland or Avro-Canada. It would be nice to see your take on that.

@nicholasmazzarella2720 Жыл бұрын

Awesome video thank you for the great content.

@roelantverhoeven371 Жыл бұрын

similar thing happened to the Dutch' southern neighbours, when the Belgian Renard 35 first flew as an airliner with pressurized cabin in 1935, months before the Boeing 307.

@rayjames6096 Жыл бұрын

The first flight of the Belgian 35 was in 1938 and it crashed killing its pilot.

@roelantverhoeven371 Жыл бұрын

@@rayjames6096 ah yes, design started in 1935, hence the 35 in the name. it still flew earlier than the 307, but it crashed due to pilot's error, he was not cleared to take her off the ground when he did... a recurring thing with renard's prototypes, on two occasions a pilot bailed from his prototypes (R32 and the Epervier) and gave ridiculous reasons why, losing the prototypes. in the case of the epervier in 1929 there's suspicion the pilot (De Smet) was paid by rivalling companies to do that...

@rayjames6096 Жыл бұрын

@@roelantverhoeven371 I'm sure your insinuating with this conspiracy tale the rival company that paid this pilot to crash the plane he was piloting was Boeing so it could be the first manufacturer with a pressurized cabin...you hear the same conspiracy nonsense from the British with the TSR-2.

@centaur1a Жыл бұрын

Would be a very interesting private jet instead of a regular jetliner (unless for short hops, or interconnecting flights).

@nopus1 Жыл бұрын

wing and tail gives away an exhibition design. As military contractor Fokker was familiar to sound barrier and rocket busters effects

@robertsettles2180 Жыл бұрын

The last few rows of seating would've been pleasant seeing that they were directly above the jet exhaust.

@justindunlap1235 Жыл бұрын

That looks so sleek, I want to fly one to Tahiti.

@999knives Жыл бұрын

At 5:20 the Rolls-Royce engines are pronounced 'ne-ne' but Nene is actually pronounced *Neen* after the Nene river in Northamptonshire in England

@richardvernon317 Жыл бұрын

Fun fact, its the river that flows through the Village were Henry Royce was born.

@ground_news Жыл бұрын

Thank you for sharing, happy to support! For anyone interested, check out the link in the description and let us know if you have any questions.

@flopjul4581 Жыл бұрын

1:55 be me(dutch) and hearing this is a hard word surprised me

@neves5083 Жыл бұрын

The design is sick

@TheFlyingBusman Жыл бұрын

Looks very DC3 meets the Jetsons.

@dmav522 Жыл бұрын

reminds me of the MiG-9, as if the C-47 and MiG-9 had a baby...

@renegadeflyer2 Жыл бұрын

As for the engine placement, my concern is for some reason one of the engines start flinging bits off. Nothing like sitting on a jet engine that is flying apart.

@GRAHAMAUS Жыл бұрын

The Comet's engines weren't placed all that differently, yet as far as I know never suffered such a failure despite 4 different engine types going into the Comet/Nimrod design over the decades. (Obviously the Comet had other issues). Small diameter engines are less prone to flying apart as the centrifugal forces are much lower than our modern turbofans.

@kakavdedatakavunuk8516 Жыл бұрын

The first time I see that concept (to be honest I didn't lose much). In general, it is like a crisscross between Curtiss Wright's Commando fuselage and some German war concepts, particularly Messerschmidt.

@savagecub Жыл бұрын

I don’t see how even the nose tire could be ingested. It looks to be suitably behind the inlets.

@maikeldekwant Жыл бұрын

Rhis honestly looks really cool!

@javierpatag3609 Жыл бұрын

I ❤❤❤ how it looks already 😊.

@williamzk9083 Жыл бұрын

Anthony Fokker, though Dutch, had worked for Hugo Junkers in WW1 and ended up “stealing” Junkers aerodynamic technology. This was the thick airfoil that made the monoplane possible but had a much higher lift to drag ratio that gave the German billers such as the Fokker Triplane, Fokker DVIII superior climb rates to allied aircraft despite far weaker engines.

@CASA-dy4vs Жыл бұрын

To be honest. I actually like the planes design, I think it’s unique and i would totally buy it

@wskinn Ай бұрын

With the greatest respect and appreciation of your fine work, aircraft designations are generally pronounced as individual letters, not words. ME-262 is pronounced as Emm Eee two six two, not Me two six two. Take it for what you will. Thank you for the variety of information you bring to our screens.

@PilotPhotog Жыл бұрын

Another brilliant video and a great explanation of how the Comet's development may have been influenced by the F26 Phantom. Thanks for posting!

@TairnKA Жыл бұрын

Looks like something from a late 40s scifi tv series (Buck Rogers), without sparklers. ;-)

@mpetersen6 Жыл бұрын

I think it looks like a Curtiss C-46 Commando with two jets slung under the fuselage. As pointed out by others there was a glut of surplus transports on the market already.

@joriss5 Жыл бұрын

I was wondering if I was the only one noticing this. At first I thought Curtiss had tried to slap a pair of jet engines under a Commando.

@TheSimon253 Жыл бұрын

Such a cute little jetliner :)

@EuroScot2023 Жыл бұрын

Apart from the minor fact that it was never more than a concept, this non-plane was not the first jet airliner. Methinks, De Havilland might have been somewhat ahead of it. As in; at the concept stage 2 years sooner. Betrayed? I think not. KLM thought it was a poor design - they were right - and that Fokker didn't have the resources or skills to produce it anyway. Never mind the fact that RR wouldn't have had any engines to spare for them. You seem to have completely missed the fact that the Gloster Meteor was in combat use before the end of WW2 - it entered service with 616 Squadron RAF at RAF Manton on 21 July 1944, initially to combat the V-1 flying bomb. The first 2 were shot down on the 4th August. The Meteors moved across the North Sea to Belgium and the Netherlands as the Allies pushed the Germans back. By the end of the war, 616 Squadron was flying from Fassberg in Germany. They never encountered Me-262s mainly because the Germans had so few and little fuel to fly them. No American jet even approached combat service in WW2. By 1946, the RAF had 16 squadrons of jets in service. Most of the early US jets used licence built British engines. These were at this time centrifugal impeller types which were more reliable for the first few years. Even after the switch to axial flow engines, a major component of US military aircraft used licence built versions of the Bristol Siddley Sapphire as the J65 in the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk, Grumman F-11 Tiger, Martin B-57 Canberra, Lockheed XF-104, North American FJ-3 Fury, North American FJ-4 Fury, Republic F-84F Thunderstreak and Boeing XB-47D (T49 testbed).

@lightdp Жыл бұрын

I immediately thought of FOD at the first glance of this aircraft.

@tomcline5631 Жыл бұрын

Looks like something from the Thunderbirds!!

@lorenzodelfino5894 Жыл бұрын

As a (retired) aeronautical engineer I can see that the Fokker engineers went for airframe stability and engine serviceability when designing the engines position. Personally, however, I have strong reservations because of FOD at take-off. Remember the Concorde crash at take-off from CDG on 7/25/2000 and which "sealed" the fate of the aircraft?

@bluebirdtrucking76 Жыл бұрын

Only 17 seats, by modern standards that’s just a corporate jet, but I never knew it existed till now so maybe it would have been the first ever corporate jet

@benrgrogan Жыл бұрын

A lot of the early jet liners had pretty low capacity. The original Comet could only carry around 40 people

@JBofBrisbane Жыл бұрын

It only existed on paper.

@thinking-laaf Жыл бұрын

Waow... As a Dutchman, having worked at Friendship simulation company in Maastricht - fokker f27 Friendship simulator - had this worked, Fokker would likely still exist....