The XF5F Skyrocket bears a strong resemblance to the Bristol Type 153A, a slightly earlier design, which did not get off the drawing board. It was intended to use two Bristol Aquila engines, of 650hp (though the Aquila never made it into production), with a projected (and probably unrealistic) top speed of 370mph and would have been armed with four 20mm cannon.
8:07 Looks like a small dog carrying a giant chewtoy 15:53 Perhaps the idea was to confuse enemy pilots which direction the plane is going. Like dazzle camouflage on ships
What five year-old? I think these were all based on Burt Rutans's baby scribblings! (I mean Rutan was born in 1943 and these designs are all from around '44. Conincidence?)
Nice esoteric subject for a video. #1 M38B kind of looks like A twin-engined, single-tailed Curtiss-Wright XP-55 Ascender (Ass-Ender). Vultee XP-54 almost gained new life as the XP-68 Tornado until the Wright R-2160 Tornado engine was cancelled (this also killed the Republic XP-69 Tornado project).
Honestly, I think the XP-54 isn't that weird. The Swedish had the J21 in a similar configuration. And that plane even had a design that made fitting a jet engine into it not super difficult.
I learned about the Grumman Skyrocket in the Seventies through vintage magazine articles and the short-lived Blackhawk comic books. The Skyrocket's main claim to fame was being a propaganda tool.
The P-48 was a insurance policy against a perceived aluminum shortage. It was quickly discovered that American aluminum manufacturers were selling aluminum to Germany through Spanish shell companies.
From straight side on the Swoose Goose looks kinda meh but from any other angle it looks pretty awesome all things considered. The swivel mountings is way too complicated, especially the moving nose fuselage. Seems to be a running thing with experimental ww2 american plans, that being the engine causing trouble.
Tbf to the corsair, visibility was always going to be an issue with that absolutely jock-off prop, given they also made the wings different for it as well.
Nope - if you take a good look, it's like this: Most of the nose is that long Ranger air-cooled engine, and its cooling ducts. Then there's the space for the Ammunition Cans for the fuselage mounted guns (With the nose gear taking up more space for the same length underneath. You want weights that are going to change to be as near the optimum Center of Gravity if possible, and forward of the CG if you can't be right on it. Then there's the wing, which is where the fuel needs to be (The Center of Gravity. Fuel is the one thing that is guaranteed to change in flight, Next is the cockpit, behind the wing. The Pilot's weight isn't going to change, and there's nowhere else to put the cockpit.
@@hammer1349 The prototype XF4U had a more forward cockpit - it was decided when the revamped the design to make it, well, flyable and useful, to stick the fuel tank (About 240 U.S. Gallons_ over the wing, and move the cockpit back. They also increased the armament from 2 guns (Yeah, less than a Brewster Buffalo) to 6 ..50 cals.
The actual content focus here is awesome, but good gods, how many times can one listen to the very obviously contrived " whu- oh! Uhhhh... does... ummm.... what?!?!" thing at the beginning of, like, every single entry (and in not just this video, but ALL of the releases on this channel dealing with anything "weird" or unusual) before your video-selecting thumb starts to get reeeeeally itchy? We get it, there are unusual aspects involved in the airplane. Thats why theyre in the video. Not tryin to be a jerk, but your scripts would be much better served if you entirely left the contrived faux-surprise bit out altogether.
Cool footage but in my humble opinion lose the narrator and replace with subtitles making the experience of watching 100% better, or do as i do watch with the sound off.
