No video
XP-67 Moonbat - The Experimental Fighter that Kept Catching on Fire
Рет қаралды 384,052
Күн бұрынThe little-known XP-67 Bat warplane prototype was the McDonnell Aircraft Company's first attempt to enter the aviation industry before the United States joined World War II.
The Moonbat was a single-seat, long-range, twin-engine fighter-interceptor aircraft. It was the response to a United States Army Air Corps request for a warplane capable of destroying enemy bomber formations.
McDonnell's design was sleek and advanced for its time, and it had the potential to become one of the fastest and most lethal aircraft in the United States Army Air Corps.
But technology could not catch up to its novel concept. The Bat was underpowered and never achieved the desired top speed of 475 miles per hour, with its full arsenal of six .50 caliber machine guns and an M4 cannon to destroy enemy bombers.
A fatal crash in late 1944 was the last straw, and the Army and Air Force moved to other projects. Still, the knowledge obtained from the Moonbat would incentivize McDonnell to produce some of America's most influential military aircraft over the following decades, and even help NASA develop the Mercury and Gemini space capsules.
---
Join Dark Skies as we explore the world of aviation with cinematic short documentaries featuring the biggest and fastest airplanes ever built, top-secret military projects, and classified missions with hidden untold true stories. Including US, German, and Soviet warplanes, along with aircraft developments that took place during World War I, World War 2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the Gulf War, and special operations mission in between.
As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Skies sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect and soundtracks for emotional impact. We do our best to keep it as visually accurate as possible.
All content on Dark Skies is researched, produced, and presented in historical context for educational purposes. We are history enthusiasts and are not always experts in some areas, so please don't hesitate to reach out to us with corrections, additional information, or new ideas.
@richnfamous59 3 жыл бұрын
look at the complexity of the shape and remember that this was generations before CAD. it was like a flying sculpture
@tmseh 3 жыл бұрын
Before this there was that Bugatti prop plane. Beautiful.
@fireteammichael1777 3 жыл бұрын
Exactly!👍 impressive as hell.
@woodbliss568 3 жыл бұрын
Yes indeed! Back then, when the slide rule ruled, this complex, beautiful design was a huge accomplishment. Congratulations to the the minds behind it!
@tmseh 3 жыл бұрын
kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bt-Kl9WnzLyYoXk.html
@tarmaque 3 жыл бұрын
I look at the complexity of the design and I remember why there weren't as many Spitfires as there were Hurricanes. The oval Spitfire wing was just too expensive and time consuming to produce. This aircraft had an expensive fuselage to make for no real aerodynamic benefit over its contemporary competition. Interesting idea, but not a practical one.
@Gorilla_Jones 3 жыл бұрын
It's amazing that there were even aeronautical engineering degrees available in 1921, aeronautics was literally still in its infancy. These guys did everything with slide rules and sweat, much respect.
@insideoutsideupsidedown2218 3 жыл бұрын
And turned out some sleek looking planes as well.
@channelsixtysix066 3 жыл бұрын
You're right, aircraft development went a an amazing pace. Think of the Horten Brothers and Northrup, with their flying wing designs. All done with first principles and the design tools available at the time. Fifteen or so years later, the SR-71 and A-12, then the Space Race. If you were an engineer, what a time to be alive.
@PantherBlitz 3 жыл бұрын
WW I showed that good aircraft design was in the national interest, and it sparked the imagination of young people entering our universities. Aviation was also a hot popular topic in the 1920's. Air racing, flight records and milestones were mainstream news stories.
@user-mp3eq6ir5b 3 жыл бұрын
A Slide Rule was a Quickie Version of a massive book of Logarithmic Tables. Everytime I find one at the Thrift Stores, I grab it.
@benjaminkonikoff2026 3 жыл бұрын
Yup, and those people helped birth something bigger than they could’ve ever imagined. Including space travel if you think about it.
@woodbliss568 3 жыл бұрын
Back then, when the slide rule ruled, this complex, beautiful design was a huge accomplishment. Congratulations to the minds behind it!
@walterthompson8697 3 жыл бұрын
Even by today's standards, the XP67 still looks up to date. It is truly unfortunate that McDonnell could not get good engines for the plane,
@glennredwine289 3 жыл бұрын
I would like to learn how to use a slide rule for calculations; my dad used one for calculations in his college chemistry classes.
@jfrankcarr 3 жыл бұрын
The Moonbat reminds me of an aircraft one would see in a 1930's through 1950's science fiction serial.
@StudeSteve62 3 жыл бұрын
Yes. (Surprising really that the XP-67 never became "The Batplane"...)
@stuart5811 3 жыл бұрын
art deco
@andreaassanelli4117 2 жыл бұрын
Straight out of Crimson Skies!
@clanrobertson7200 2 жыл бұрын
But extremely streamlined! Just needed jet engines! I can’t believe no one had that imagination. This would have swallowed up the Migs!
@othersideguy16 3 жыл бұрын
can't believe among the legendary aircraft, the F4 Phantom doesn't even get a mention, literally THE McDonnell Douglas aircraft that defined the company for so long
@pborgia1 3 жыл бұрын
That's what I thought too!
@Azrael_the_Black 3 жыл бұрын
I was here to comment on this odd anomaly as well.
@richreed9927 3 жыл бұрын
The Phantom is proof that, with enough thrust, you can get anything to fly. If only the Moonbat...
@ka199702 3 жыл бұрын
- I agree no mention of the F4 Phantom. Not to mention the A-4 Skyhawk ,A-3 Sky Warrior -A-1 Skyraider and A-26 Invader just a few notable mentions
@Azrael_the_Black 3 жыл бұрын
@@ka199702 To be fair those were all either exclusively Douglas made or originally Douglas made from before the merger.
@ronalddevine9587 3 жыл бұрын
If they weren't so fixated on an obsolete engine, they might have tried fitting it with some Packard built Rolls-Royce Merlin engines. That might have solved the problem.
@wolfgagger 3 жыл бұрын
Merlin would've required a total redesign of the engine mount/cowling and the wing itself
@blockstacker5614 3 жыл бұрын
A small price to pay for good engines
@BigDaddy_MRI 3 жыл бұрын
Agree. This plane needed power and was severely hampered by low horsepower. Turbojets were not available at the time and the RR Merlin would have given the power both near the ground and at altitude. The Packard built Merlin would have been easier to install if the plane had started with the English built Merlin. The airframe would require modifications, but better to adapt to the Merlin in the very early ‘40’s than towards the end of the war. Amazing looking plane. Probably a bit too heavy and the Merlin gulped fuel, so that would need to be sorted out. But the advantage was how aerodynamic the airframe and wings were. Very impressive. I’ve never see it before.
@earlwyss520 3 жыл бұрын
@@BigDaddy_MRI The RR Griffin may have been a better choice, but Axial Flow turbo jets would have been the best.
@keithalaird 3 жыл бұрын
I believe even a pair of turbocharged Allisons like the 1225 HP used on the early P-38s would have been a vast improvement.
@Rogan_Dorn 3 жыл бұрын
Man imagine if this thing had gotten some proper Merlin engines...
@rojaunjames747 3 жыл бұрын
it would be too big in my oppinon
@johnparrish9215 3 жыл бұрын
@@rojaunjames747 Ya, the Mosquitoe sucked too.
@atomicskull6405 3 жыл бұрын
Or jet engines.
@fireteammichael1777 3 жыл бұрын
I love that idea!! Any compatibility issues aside.
@davidhollenshead4892 3 жыл бұрын
The Alison Engines used on the P51 or the Packard Engines were no more likely to overheat or burn than the Merlin Engine. People often view the Merlin Engine as vastly superior when it was a good design, being comparable to other similar engines...
@terrancecoard388 3 жыл бұрын
Looks like it should have jet engines.
@goldcountryruss7035 3 жыл бұрын
I agree, two of the British jet engines would have teen the quick fix.
@olsmokey 3 жыл бұрын
Or turboprops.
@doggoboiz7371 3 жыл бұрын
If you look at it a certain way it almost looks like a ME-262 except if it had jet engines and they were mounted underneath the wings!
@mauricepowers8079 3 жыл бұрын
@@doggoboiz7371 the ME 262 looks like a flying brick compared to this puppy.
@casinodelonge 3 жыл бұрын
Its like a coupe version of the Canberra.
@stratomaster5926 3 жыл бұрын
That plane looks absolutely gorgeous, can’t believe I never knew about it until now
@HoundDogMech 3 жыл бұрын
The government has screwed up more plane designs with just telling they had to use citrine out dated engines. The P-51A, with the Allison V1710 non turbo. right up to the TF-30 for the Tomcat.
@youthere7327 3 жыл бұрын
greased palms
@bsa45acp 3 жыл бұрын
I wonder how it would have performed with twin Merlin engines.
@PantherBlitz 3 жыл бұрын
... and modified shuttle engines for the SLS. The beat goes on even today.
@matthewcaughey8898 3 жыл бұрын
The TF-30 did no favors for the F-111 either
@paoloviti6156 3 жыл бұрын
@@bsa45acp it would been the Griffon that would made the whole difference not the Merlin...
@princeofkernow9875 3 жыл бұрын
Imagine if the got the P51 treatment a Rolls Royce merlin it could have been the American mosquito. It's sure got the looks.
@stevesullivan9752 3 жыл бұрын
The Moonbat was designed AROUND its engines. To use different power plants would have involved a complete redesign of the craft... and guaranteed it would look nothing like it does here. Having read about this beauty years ago... it's designers were well aware that different engines would be a plus and an upgrade, but that would have meant starting over from scratch. Cheers from Ireland Fellas!
@M167A1 3 жыл бұрын
@@stevesullivan9752 spot on Steve
@princeofkernow9875 3 жыл бұрын
@@stevesullivan9752 Strange the same engine was used in the early mustang and they managed to fit a merlin in with minimal alterations so don't see why they couldn't. Sure there the might be a design issue that could have been unforeseen CofG etc All I'm saying is shame the engine selection was determined by the bean counters.
@bronco5334 3 жыл бұрын
@@princeofkernow9875 The Mustang didn't have it's engines mounted in closely-faired aerofoil sections buried in the wing.
@princeofkernow9875 3 жыл бұрын
@@bronco5334 The main point here is the poor engine selection undermined both the Mark1 mustang and the Moonbat. The merlin was clearly the power plant for the job using an significantly inferior engine completely undermined both aircraft designs.
@brentlanigan195 3 жыл бұрын
It was way ahead of its time for sure. Imagine for a brief moment swept back wings, jet engines, and a few other mods. It would have been fast. It has some remarkable similarities to the SR-71 looking straight on. McDonnell and Jack Northrup were both way ahead of their time and technology.
@hagerty1952 3 жыл бұрын
They were, although neither had anything to do with the SR-71. That was Kelly Johnson at Lockheed.
@brentlanigan195 3 жыл бұрын
@@hagerty1952 Well aware of that. I said the plane had some similar appearances to the SR-71 on how the fuselage and wing were blended. Very aware of Kelly Johnson and his accomplishments.
@hagerty1952 3 жыл бұрын
@@brentlanigan195 - You are, of course, correct in all counts.
@lionelphillip8763 3 жыл бұрын
2years more of testing /upgrade s it could have played apivitol role. Mmmmmmm.............??????!!!?’
@joeshmoe9978 3 жыл бұрын
95% of comments "it needed better/jet engines" Recognition to DarkSkies for using far more relevant footage than in the last video 👍
@stonefox9124 3 жыл бұрын
Wicked profile pic
@kantemirovskaya1lightninga30 3 жыл бұрын
Interesting and sad that the AAC didn't let him work with a modern engine. It likely would have been a game changer. They should have just made on with a different power plant to show the army...
@thedungeondelver 3 жыл бұрын
Can you imagine this airframe but with jet engines in the 1940s?
@brianking81 3 жыл бұрын
They upgraded the original Mustangs from Allison engines to Merlins and transformed their performance. Why couldn't they have done something similar to the XP-67? There were any number of other engines available.
@PantherBlitz 3 жыл бұрын
My thoughts exactly. Just build one and ask for forgiveness later if it fails.
@kantemirovskaya1lightninga30 3 жыл бұрын
@@PantherBlitz My guess is that it was a mix of $$ and politics. For the AAC to require sticking to one engine is STRANGE... someone had a stake in the engine being used-unfortunately.
@chrisburn7178 3 жыл бұрын
@@brianking81 Interestingly, I just found that the Allison-engined P-51B was actually faster than a C model at low altitude. It was only at the high altitude that protecting bombers required that the Merlin, with its two-stage supercharger, had that serious edge. But this plane was built for the same deal so a Merlin seems like the answer.
@jamesdavis8021 3 жыл бұрын
This blended design screams,give me jet engines.
@tacticalmattfoley 3 жыл бұрын
ME262 would fit no problem.
@insideoutsideupsidedown2218 3 жыл бұрын
The B52 came out in 1952, 30 years after the basic start of proper aviation. And we still fly them today. Much respect to Boeing.
@NymbusCumulo928 3 жыл бұрын
Um what??? Aviation started before WW1 . . . Im pretty sure
@insideoutsideupsidedown2218 3 жыл бұрын
@@NymbusCumulo928 yes, but is wasnt much more than lawnmower engines strapped to canvas covered crates, I could rephrase it as prehistoric manned flight...
@drm315 3 жыл бұрын
The less frantic narration style is much appreciated!
@dj33036 3 жыл бұрын
Frantic is the perfect word.
@610Mungral 3 жыл бұрын
@@dj33036 still needs playing at x0.75 speed to make narration intelligible!
@300guy 3 жыл бұрын
What they should have done is mount jet engines in those nacelles instead of the Continental engines. The area ruled fuselage was actually quite advanced for the time.
@Razalonjrt1 3 жыл бұрын
I agree give that jet engines and it would be a radical and probly good jet fighter and partly stealth with its design. It so sad to see a good airframe not get production just because the engines were not the ones needed.
@300guy 3 жыл бұрын
Was definitely a much better looking design than the FH1 I bet if the FH1's engines had been installed in that airframe the result would have been much better, and those Westinghouse jet engines were not great.
@fleafrier1 3 жыл бұрын
If only they could have gotten some engines off of an ME262
@cammobunker 3 жыл бұрын
It probably would have worked a treat if not cursed with crappy engines as mandated by the AAC. Imagine that thing with a couple of Merlins in the nacelles.
@DeltaVTX 3 жыл бұрын
Area rule was discovered by the Germans two years after this aircraft was designed...
@annbaker2117 3 жыл бұрын
I'd love to have seen what the Moonbat could have done with a couple of Allison engines in it. Mike
@djay6651 3 жыл бұрын
Nah, put a couple of Packard V-1650-7s in it. These were American, licensed versions of the Rolls Royce Merlin-66, and was the engine that powered the P-51D. The Bat might have been a contender had the USAAC not insisted on using under powered engines.
@Chebab-Chebab 3 жыл бұрын
A later version landed on Tatooine with a damaged hyperdrive.
@j.muckafignotti4226 3 жыл бұрын
Ya, I saw that in the news. We’re they able to get parts for their hyperdrive out there?
@RagsHSC-7 3 жыл бұрын
If you look at it carefully it looks very close to a stealth aircraft ! Fuselage & engine structure on the wings oh yeah 😎 unfortunate though 🥲 Ty God Bless
@chrismaguire3667 3 жыл бұрын
I thought that!
@cat637d 3 жыл бұрын
And the F-4 Phantom ll, possibly the best all round warplane ever built!
@Watson1 3 жыл бұрын
It would have been better if they had fitted guns or even a cannon,
@johncaputo5538 3 жыл бұрын
@@Watson1 F-4E had on-board 20mm 6 barrel Gatling gun cannon
@channelsixtysix066 3 жыл бұрын
A case of what might have been. The airframe looked about 10 years into the future, but powered with WW1 era engines. Not a good combination.
@Joshua_N-A 3 жыл бұрын
What engine should've been used? Had the top brass allow it to have a suitable engine it might've become at least a test bed for new technologies and later as a mass produced jet fighter with a slight redesign.
@channelsixtysix066 3 жыл бұрын
@@Joshua_N-A The design is already there, just suitable engines were needed. Turbo-props, but unfortunately that was 10 years in the future. By then, jet fighters had already started to appear.
@xcrockery8080 3 жыл бұрын
The airframe wouldn't have been usable for another 20-30 years as they didn't at the time understand the aerodynamic boundaries that it had crossed, let alone have the technology to deal with them..
@bingosunnoon9341 3 жыл бұрын
It's not a good design. If it were, other airplane builders would have copied it.
@JoelBondorowsky-Sites 3 жыл бұрын
The Bat was able to catch fire in 1943 and then be repaired for its first flight in 1941. That's some sophisticated engineering.
@timothyboles6457 3 жыл бұрын
Would have been interesting to see what this plane would do with Allison engines or Merlin's! Using a 20 year old engine design was a horrible decision. I wonder if most of the engine problems were the engines themselves.
@ProperLogicalDebate 3 жыл бұрын
Did someone want to get rid of the plane, the company, or the people?
@harrykeel8557 3 жыл бұрын
Sir, I am with you on that. It would have been very interesting indeed to see what it might have done given a different engine.
@SMDoktorPepper 3 жыл бұрын
It was DEFINITELY because of the engines..underpowered WW1 tech on a plane that could be from this century.
@stevesullivan9752 3 жыл бұрын
Unfortunately the plane was designed around the engines... these engines weren't fitted as an afterthought. To use different engines you are looking at a complete redesign of the craft, and a completely different looking airframe to boot.
@SMDoktorPepper 3 жыл бұрын
@@stevesullivan9752 you should watch the video because Mcdonald was forced to use those engines, and he wanted something very different
@gregdarby6225 3 жыл бұрын
Imagine if the Army had allowed V12 Merlins to be used. This ground breaking engine did make its way into American airframes, notably the P51 Mustang. Twin Merlins were used succesfully in the British Mosquito aircraft, which achieved amazing performance for its time, and although the XP-67 was heavier, it would have made for an interesting experiment for Merlins to have been fitted, with or without the Army's backing.
@jjeckerm06 3 жыл бұрын
Oh, it definitely would have been formidable with the right powerplants! The question is, would Packard, Allison, Wright, or P&W have been willing to provide an engine that would’ve been able to work with the airframe?
@waynebrumley2315 3 жыл бұрын
you did not mention the F-4 phantom maybe just an over sight. I enjoy you work!
@trunkmonkey9417 3 жыл бұрын
Yes. 6000 produced, used by USAF, US Navy, USMC ANG, Bomb Truck, Interceptor, Wild Weasel, Reconnaissance, Drone, and set and broke many records and utilized by a dozen other nations. (USAF Retired, and Phantom Crew Chief. 66-0295 "Wicked Wanda".)
@StudeSteve62 3 жыл бұрын
I found that odd too. More successful than all the other McDonnell types combined, and an absolute icon...
@stevenkramer6217 3 жыл бұрын
He showed it in passing, even if he didn’t mention it explicitly. I thought he did a whole video on the f4
@l.d.s.4112 3 жыл бұрын
Yeah, I thought it was conspicuous that perhaps McDonnell's best-known aircraft wasn't mentioned among the other examples.
@richardgarowski.5161 3 жыл бұрын
It was a head of it's time..if it weren't for the blow torch engines! Great engineering for slide rules and guts.
@pedroleal7118 Жыл бұрын
Great looking plane, slick design. With the right engines, it would have been ages ahead of anything of that era!
@828enigma6 3 жыл бұрын
Absolutely beautiful airframe design. With better engines, it absolutely could have taken on the best the Luftwaffe had to offer. And, outfitted with the 6 37mm cannon or the 75mm single, would have be an excellent tank buster.
@harrykeel8557 3 жыл бұрын
I don't think I would have wanted to been flying it when the 75mm cannon was fired. The B-25 pilots hated to fire theirs. I probably would have shaken it apart with a single shot.
@828enigma6 3 жыл бұрын
@@harrykeel8557 They'd probably used a reduced velocity load, or a shaped charge warhead. Tank armor was quite thin on top.
@stevesullivan9752 3 жыл бұрын
@@828enigma6 no need for a 75mm when it comes to opening up armor. The German Stuka when fitted with twin 37mm wing pod cannons was more than enough to give a tank a sunroof.
@letoubib21 3 жыл бұрын
@@stevesullivan9752 And 'cause of that the Hs 129 B-3 got the 75-mm-AT-gun *. . . ;-)*
@5co756 3 жыл бұрын
@@letoubib21 That was only a prototype or a test , if you fired the gun the plane got very unstable . The Duck was way too small and had less hp for such a big gun . Only the 37mm version was build and in combat .
@braddavis4377 3 жыл бұрын
The moonbat looks like it's perfect for turboprop engines rather than piston! A plane like that is too beautiful to leave in the dust off history...they should bring it back and re-engine it!
@StudeSteve62 3 жыл бұрын
Such a striking design. In some ways the Moonbat parallels the Westland Whirlwind: a bold design with great potential, fatally hobbled by a bad engine choice. The Moonbat looks like a turboprop even in its initial configuration, and I can imagine a turbine Co-In version succeeding postwar...with pure jets, this design might have been an American Meteor, with a two seat version being a challenger to the T-33...the Moonbat was a remarkable "what if" aircraft. Curious: why'd you leave out McDonnell's most famous and successful design, the F-4 Phantom II?
@tesmith47 2 жыл бұрын
The army buracacy thinking was 50 years behind
@williamfawkes8379 3 жыл бұрын
The first thing I thought of when I saw this plane was the British DH-98 Mosquito bomber. It was not as smooth, but had a similar shape, and was made of wood. They used it for a huge range of roles, and it was indeed fast. I'm not sure when the Mosquito was designed exactly but it was a huge success.
@paststeve1 3 жыл бұрын
With a couple of Merlin engines, she probably would have been a success!
@hehted 3 жыл бұрын
Called Mosquito
@paststeve1 3 жыл бұрын
@@hehted You've got that right! That's exactly what I was thinking!
@iKumala 3 жыл бұрын
forerunner of the stealth for sure. amazing! thanks- there are so many pieces of history you are filling in.
@bzzcks 3 жыл бұрын
Praise Bob...
@veinbanger9381 3 жыл бұрын
Best aircrafts ever created was the F4 Phantom (Double Ugly, St Louis Slugger, Big Iron Sled) and its big ol bastard, the DC10, most importantly the KC10 Extender
@StudeSteve62 3 жыл бұрын
DC10 was a Douglas design to begin with, though. Phantom II was pure McDonnell. Found it odd they left it out, since it was certainly McDonnell's greatest success.
@veinbanger9381 3 жыл бұрын
@@StudeSteve62 I had no idea that the DC10 was a Douglas design at 1st, nor about the F4 being a McDonnell design at 1st....oops. Thank you tho
@bodamian_bg 3 жыл бұрын
The Moonbat looks absolutely brilliant in design. And eventually it could have happen on my opinion. I can easy imagine it even amongst the early jet powered planes.. Thanks for all the very interesting vids this channel makes! Salutations from Bulgaria!
@olsmokey 3 жыл бұрын
I can picture it silhouetted against a full moon. It would be a marvellous sight.
@martinsavage6838 3 жыл бұрын
Beautiful design. Imagine if they’d had turboprops to put on it.
@petergouldbourn2312 3 жыл бұрын
Best thing that I like about this channel is that it brings to recognition aircraft designs that I have never heard of. Thank you for this
@fredtotal33 3 жыл бұрын
Imagine this plane with Merlin engines used in the P51. Would have been a winner
@silverwing3359 3 жыл бұрын
I have loved this plane for years and was hoping you'd make a video about it some day. My fears that it might never happen have been assuaged and I thank you very much for covering an aircraft that may yet have enough interest to rebuild it someday. I do believe it could have taken the fight into the heart of Berlin itself and maybe even changed the direction of how fighter development occured during the war and after the fact as well! Thanks for all the content you made, it helps me remember my love of full scale aviation!
@VTPSTTU 3 жыл бұрын
If the engines had worked, the armament would have been a terror to the enemy bombers. If this plane had gotten into the air in 1943, the war might have ended a year earlier.
@pixytorres7117 3 жыл бұрын
Not really since the Germans produce Ho229 bomber and Me262 which was the first jet engine plane that ever existed. If Germans managed to make that jet engine plane everything would be over for the other propelled planes.
@insideoutsideupsidedown2218 3 жыл бұрын
There really wasn’t a strategic threat from enemy bombers, either in the Pacific of the ETO. This plane would have been a great for anti shipping and ground support.
@CaveJohnsonAperture 3 жыл бұрын
@@pixytorres7117 262 was far from the first jet plane to ever exist even for the Germans.
@5co756 3 жыл бұрын
@@pixytorres7117 Well if Heinkel don't telled Hitler to make a jetbomber out of the Me262 , this thing would probably saw combat in ~1943 . Heinkel got a simillar project the He 280, but Messerschmitt's 262 was build then . So there was some politics going on as today .
@StudeSteve62 3 жыл бұрын
Such a striking design. In some ways the Moonbat parallels the Westland Whirlwind: a bold design with great potential, fatally hobbled by a bad engine choice. The Moonbat looks like a turboprop even in its initial configuration, and I can imagine a turbine Co-In version succeeding postwar...with pure jets, this design might have been an American Meteor, with a two seat version being a challenger to the T-33...the Moonbat was a remarkable "what if" aircraft.
@Anfidurl 3 жыл бұрын
Can you imagine a Moonbat with two Rolls-Royce Merlin engines?
@blue2sco 3 жыл бұрын
Any thing flies better with Merlins
@Booozy3050 3 жыл бұрын
My god that design looked so ahead of it's time. Never even knew about this one , thank you!!!
@amagnier 3 жыл бұрын
Perfect for batman.
@Davethreshold 3 жыл бұрын
You have a TREMENDOUS ability to use footage in these that we know are not about the subject that you are talking about, but you make it WORK so well!
@joebfnl1079 3 жыл бұрын
Now, just imagine this aircraft with turboprop engine's???. This would be a great ground attack aircraft in the 21's century!!!.
@haydenschnick 2 жыл бұрын
this has to be up there with the all time most elegant looking aircraft.
@ryananderson9905 3 жыл бұрын
looks like a jet with props lmao
@jbhix2691 3 жыл бұрын
The most beautiful airplane ever built.
@texasslingleadsomtingwong8751 3 жыл бұрын
I could just imagine the owner losing his mind over the army's ww1 doosenburge grade engine .
@charlessweigert6180 2 жыл бұрын
I absolutely love the Moonbat!!!! I would have to agree that it looks like it would've been right at home with some jet engines. I would also love to see a model in 1/48 of this!!!!!
@emaheiwa8174 3 жыл бұрын
Looks like the B-1B grandfather
@Deebz270 3 жыл бұрын
The jet engine was already a proven concept by the time the US entered WW2. This airframe, with its low-drag coeficiency and laminar-flow configuration would have been a perfect match for a gas turbine or two. Yet even a full blown Merlin would have been better than an Allison or the inverted V12. . The design of this airframe looks like it may well have inspired Lockheed-Martin/Skunkworks too, because it bears a lot of resemblence to the later, now famous SR71 'Blackbird'.
@mattsiede443 3 жыл бұрын
If they had put a couple Merlin engines on that to begin
@johnmccallum8512 3 жыл бұрын
I wonder what it's performance would have been like with even the early jet engines.
@fredrickmillstead6397 3 жыл бұрын
Griffons would be better
@em1osmurf 3 жыл бұрын
i lived in va beach, and remember the roar of the F4s as they worked NAS Oceana. a beast the navy has never had since, the BOOM as they caught the 3rd wire. a legend.
@aggromando7323 3 жыл бұрын
With the proper engines it may have done well in combat. Regardless, it’s a great looking aircraft.
@viewsandreviews180 Жыл бұрын
I’ve liked the look of this plane from the first time I saw a picture and didn’t know anything else about it. That said I believe there’s two things that kept this from having a production run: 1. The army’s fixation on an obsolete engine and 2. The fact that cooling the engine, obsolete or not, wasn’t given a higher priority than full body laminar flow. It’s a shame this wasn’t tried again with axial flow jet engines.
@excell211 3 жыл бұрын
Its structure design resembles the Blackbird one to me, a little bit
@leebenson4874 3 жыл бұрын
Lot-of-bit IMO!
@nickmcarr617 3 жыл бұрын
What a stunning aircraft.
@-CLUMSYDIYer- 3 жыл бұрын
A design before its time. What a shame!
@hansmueller3029 3 жыл бұрын
Never laid eyes on this one. And I consider myself an aficionado. Had there been sufficient support this would have shortened the war. Great video
@amak1131 3 жыл бұрын
Smells like some other company had some influence and forced the engines on this plane. Cannot think why they forced it on them, even after seeing it was causing all the issues.
@rosiehawtrey 3 жыл бұрын
Hmm, can't see why an American company would try and screw over another American company at any and every possible opportunity? What parallel world have you been living in and can I emigrate? Oh, and the reason? Profit
@bronco5334 3 жыл бұрын
XP-67 was a bomber destroyer, designed to go after large formations of heavy bombers. The axis didn't HAVE any heavy bombers, and what few medium bombers the Germans put into the air, were pretty well decimated during 1940. It's not that some evil politics killed XP-67, it's that strategic planners looked at the real-world situation, and realized the need to build heavy fighter to defend against non-existent attacks from non-existent axis bombers wasn't nearly as pressing as the need to build more allied heavy bombers and escort fighters for those heavy bombers. Naturally, the XP-67 was pushed WAY down in the priority list. For much the same reason, the "point interceptor" program (which included the short-range lightweight Mustang variants P-51F, P-51G, and P-51J) never amounted to anything: because the luftwaffe never went on the offensive after 1941, there was nothing for point interceptors to intercept.
@mrkay1856 3 жыл бұрын
It's one beautiful plane.. If it had been fitted with Jet engines a few years later.. or properly powered engines I'm the beginning then yes... it would've been a game changer and for future generations
@fwi1298 3 жыл бұрын
you left out the F-4 Phantom II
@robertgresham3603 3 жыл бұрын
That’s fascinating. The blend and shape reminds me of the SR-71 Blackbird.
@randypowell3180 3 жыл бұрын
If they had put a couple of Rolls Royce Merlin engines on it. It probably would have out performed everything in the sky.
@claveworks 3 жыл бұрын
Or Griffons.. that would have made it a true piston rocket-ship!
@randypowell3180 3 жыл бұрын
@@claveworks Quite likely.
@garykish8951 3 жыл бұрын
The most jaw dropping gorgeous plane in the world.
@bretmacchia7994 3 жыл бұрын
The MoonBat def would if the Army was more generous
@lanceleavitt7472 3 жыл бұрын
This is another perfect example of what happens when our beloved politicians get involved with military contracts. ---Great upload, thanks. ---
@utbdoug 3 жыл бұрын
They numbered the Bat number 21... BAT21.. Love the coincidence. And it was an awesome film!
@Frosty_tha_Snowman 2 жыл бұрын
This was such a modern and sleek looking plane, even by today's standards. What an incredible concept.. I wish this would've worked out exactly how the creator had planned... I find it unfortunate that it didn't
@jackvoss175 3 жыл бұрын
Designing and making airplanes started out mechanically simple, like with automobiles. But quickly left that behind. Aeronautical complexity continues to grow. Courtesy of Half Vast Flying.
@Pectopah123 3 жыл бұрын
Once again great video. Thank you.
@mannyst1nvan 3 жыл бұрын
That's crazy that they came up with that design so early. Really cool looking!
@ryanpester552 3 жыл бұрын
Yes .50s and 20mm are some hard hitting rounds. The Moonbat would definitely do some damage. However without proper engines she is in the fight where she can easily be taken out and get too many airmen killed. With the proper engines she'd be one hell of a fight/attack aircraft.
@theProClaimer 2 жыл бұрын
Best looking plane up to date!
@brotherjim3051 3 жыл бұрын
The moonbat was ahead of its time and behind the curve all at once. You should do one on the Martin P6M SeaMaster and the Beriev Be-10. Jet powered flying boats.
@Lastindependentthinker 3 жыл бұрын
That was ahead of it's time.
@smokyclouds5734 3 жыл бұрын
The design was ahead of its time.
@thedungeondelver 3 жыл бұрын
I think if the Bat had gotten it's engine issue under control, yes, it would've been a very good heavy escort fighter, and long range patrol aircraft over Europe and the Pacific, respectively.
@jeremycox571 3 жыл бұрын
Learned a lot on aviation from your channel thinks it’s awesome
@retepeyahaled2961 3 жыл бұрын
A pleasure to look at your video as always. Your voice is pleasant to listen to as always. Fortunately your speed of speech has slowed down to a normal rate.
@briansc5148 3 жыл бұрын
Couldn't help not thinking of this being a jet powered American version of a Me 262, and how very forward thinking the shape was. If this had gone into production, aircraft following it would have had a significantly increased amount and rate of technological advancement.
@tyrelltedtorreon2511 3 жыл бұрын
The right air frame wrong engine. Only if it had the same luck as the p-51 mustang with the merlin maybe just maybe. Most common problem that would plague promising aircraft design to say the least.
@SMDoktorPepper 3 жыл бұрын
Many years ago, Mcdonald Douglas had a small museum in its offices but this plane was never mentioned, which is sad as it looked beautiful
@bingosunnoon9341 3 жыл бұрын
I worked at MAC during Gemini and the F-4 days. Never heard of the Moonbat until now.
@jamesjava1782 3 жыл бұрын
I think it would have been a wonderful jet powered aircraft. I am surprised that after using the under powered propeller engine, that they just replaced them with Jets. What a beautiful design. True work of art. 😀✌️
@mastergunnerysgt1258 2 жыл бұрын
This the 1st desire of Asspaer that the Marines use now, In combat for what is of what we know now.. Love you all, Master Gunnery SGT USMC
@chrisloomis1489 3 жыл бұрын
Had this aircraft had fitted engines like BMY made for the Geman twin engine fighter ....the design was superb for the early jets.
@yousseph777 3 жыл бұрын
Nice looking aircraft, ahead of its time. I am impressed, for what it is worth.
@chrislong3938 3 жыл бұрын
An amazing looking aircraft that looked so futuristic in the front yet so antiquated by comparison in the tail! If jets had been available, I wonder how it might have behaved!
@palerider7171 3 жыл бұрын
The Army Air Corp “Yeah, we grant you a contract to build a cutting edge interceptor , but its yo be got to powered by left over engines we have no other use for than to boat anchors for the Navy, because we know better than your engineers! Oh btw it got perform up to your original specs.” This up holds a long military tradition of brilliant decision, right along with Army refusing to adopt Winchesters in the “Indian campaigns” , telling Mitchell “there’s no way a an airplane can destroy a battleship!” and validates that military intelligence is an oxymoron!
@gorflunk 3 жыл бұрын
Don't forget the M16 forced to use ball ammo and no chrome plated chambers. Set up to fail?
@palerider7171 3 жыл бұрын
@@gorflunk I would have to look it up but I believe it’s against the Geneva convention to use hollow points or fragmenting ammo so that might be dictated by an outside force. The other sounds about par though. Add “we need a forward assist on the M16 because if the round doesn’t fit under the force of the return spring, mass of bolt carrier and bolt or slapping the charging handle if it a little out of battery, then we need a do dad to really jam the cartridge in the chamber and render to weapon unusable for a while!” Watched a retired Major do just that on the range. It took 15+ minutes to clear the round by repeatedly beating the but stock on a concert shooting table! The round was wadded to somewhere around 3/4 of it original length. My advice before his “training” kicked in was “Don’t force it, cycle another round and if that does work change magazines because that ones got a feed issue!” Again Military “intelligence”
@gorflunk 3 жыл бұрын
@@palerider7171 Ball ammo used dirtier powder which gummed up the works. Not having chrome a plated chamber only exacerbated said gumming. And to top it all off, no cleaning kits were issued to the troops. Someone wanted that rifle to fail and they didn't even care how many soldiers would die.
@larryowsowitz2274 3 жыл бұрын
Totally left out the F-4 Phantom II in the list of legendary aircraft produced by McDonnell.
@fireteammichael1777 3 жыл бұрын
Love the detailed parts and technical info! Keep doing what you're doing!
@charleswaynewright2042 2 жыл бұрын
Within 30 seconds of the video I thought beautiful plane propellers out of place here this is a jet aircraft I was reminded of the year
@lowkey213 3 жыл бұрын
It blows my mind how he was able to achieve symmetry with such a complex shape. Must have been a nightmare
@jessfrankel5212 3 жыл бұрын
The design was way ahead of its time. Too bad the engines weren't up to par. If they had been, it might have changed the balance of air power more quickly. What amazes me is how fast everything changed. Planes got bigger and faster almost overnight, and in just six years--from the start of WWII to it's end--they went from propeller-driven aircraft to jet fighters. (I know there were jet engines before the war, but I'm talking about practical usage, even with the Heinkel 178). The 'Bat' reminds me of a stealth fighter in some ways...still a nice design.
Imperial War Museums
Рет қаралды 2,6 МЛН
DroneScapes
Рет қаралды 1,4 МЛН