Arado Ar 234 & Variants 

@Robert Miller Not only did Germany have access to Wolfram aka Tungsten, it developed it and used it.

The war was never meant to involve the entire West. The Germans won every fight with relative ease with late 1930's technology and were slow to develop their jet technology thinking present tech was adequate. Heinkle's jets were out of the gate first but the Furher was no fan of Herr Heinkle so Messerschmidt recieved the funds to develop the 262 . But the Furher wanted a F/B version not a straight fighter so that really fouled things also

Sir Frank Whittle also knew about axial-flow engines but also knew that the materials required were not available. So he came up with a different design.

@@Diemerstein You're absofucklutely right, fella. General Franco cancelled wolfram to Hitler when things got really bloody.

@@bigblue6917 Metrovick F2 axial flow engines powered a Meteor prototype in November 1943. The decision was that axial flow engines were too complex to be of use in WWII. The F2 became the Beryl, then the Sapphire, RR were developing the Avon. German problems with axial flow engines show the UK was right.

Yes, and NO--the diversification on all these advanced projects, caused very little success. They were short of EVERYTHING they needed to complete a workable and war winning product--result? far too little far too late. Most potentially effective winner, was the Me 262. That REALLY amazed the Allies.

@@MrDaiseymay it was all absorpt by the wunderwaffen programs, the delivery system for strategic weapons where as costly as the manhatten project, only the nazi didn't want or where capable of building an atomic bomb. What was hitler really talking about "wunderwaffen"?

Doubtful, the Brits and Americans had already developed their own jet engine power. The Americans decided quantity of production was more valuable than better tech. Stupid decision I think, America had the capacity and the resources to do both.

Shortsircut1 Operation Paperclip, and all the post war designs incorporating German research data (F-86 and MiG-15), even flat out reverse engineering. Imitation is the purest form of flattery.

You know that's right!

@@thomaszhang3101 Yep--the Bell X-5 (two were built; it was the first variable-sweep wings jet [and perhaps the first variable-sweep wings aircraft of any type] to fly) was a near-carbon-copy of a German experimental aircraft that didn't fly, but whose prototype (or full-scale engineering mock-up; I forget which) was captured and brought to the U.S. for study.

If they had such machines as Me 262 and Arado Jet bombers during the battle of Britain ..

Just one in america

@@HolocaustDenier A shame that there are not more of these and others for us aviation historians to see. The height of technical brilliance stolen to the USA and then scrapped so that there was no evidence. Such a beautiful plane that always seems to generate a certain amount of negativity. Did the Allies have anything as good at the time, I don't think so.

@@bobingram6912 When you want to make your argument more valid, avoid expresion like "i think". Returning to the topic, yes it is a shame. Even on the internet you can`t find much details about the other variants except the one diplayed in museum (the B-2 variant)

@@HolocaustDenier Apologies for just making a personal point, don't seem to remember arguing with anyone.

@@bobingram6912 it was a suggestion

Long time ago, i've had a 1:72 plastic model of the 4 engine Ar234, amazing.... :-)

William Charles : they had a lot on the drawing board and in prototypes...

The Ar234 had little influence on teh B-47. Other German research into swept wings definitely was utilised but the Ar234 was not a swept wing design. The underslung engines of the B-47 were mounted on pylons and were mostly forward of the wing leading edges - a system devised by Boeing and owing little to German research.ch

Very advanced technology indeed. But the Germans were running out of all sorts of specialized materials. And they were running out of experienced pilots.

The 'Amerikabomber' would have been the deal breaker when it comes advanced bombers.

I am looking to more mordorn planes the a-10 W arthogg! Defenitly has the look of old german prototypes! Yes. And the B-2 stealth bomber flying is the same dimensions!

There was Operation Lusty to where the allies sent teams to obtain as many of the latest german aircraft/prototypes as possible. All the aircraft and technologies found were shipped back to uk and USA for testing. Unfortunately most of it was destroyed and buried after testing.

Bennie Knape the a10 has a has a interesting development as the us went and asked ww2 Stuka aces of there tactics and how a ground attack jet should look like they asked many people such as nazi Germans top Stuka ace who was living in Argentina

Very true ! This was a lesson for the entire globe.

the Smithsonian in DC has a 234.It was I believe the 1st aircraft with an ejection seat.Way, way ahead of any other air force.

@@andrewporter4636 Hopefully, an enthusiast (or such an organization) with the funding will one day build and fly a replica Ar 234, as was done with the flying replica Me 262 (whose modern General Electric CJ610 [military designation: J85] axial-flow turbojets are housed inside realistic dummy Jumo 004 "sleeves"). With the addition of retractable, narrow, wing-tip (or nearly so) "whisker" skids (the two Bell X-2 rocket planes had these, in addition to a retractable fuselage main-gear skid and a retractable nose wheel), the original Ar 234 takeoff trolley/landing skids arrangement would work fine, because the aircraft wouldn't lean over to one side or the other during landing.

If we are talking about the same episode (an Ar 234 that will be brought to England from a Danish air base) the engine was sabotaged by the German ground crew. After a brief, hard investigation, the person responsible was discovered and consequently severely punished (source: "Storia Militare" - a generally serious and well documented Italian magazine - August 2019)

Ol winky crashed and nearly died flying seveal british planes too... 25 hour TBOs was typical for combat aircraft even back in 1950s

Not under their, circumstances---jeeezus. In the end, for all that technical and scientific excellence--conventional armaments in massive number's WON, by a huge margin.

How was it rare? It is published to RU-vid where anyone can see or download it at anytime.

@@Mrtweet81 By rare footage they meant that there is very little footage of the Ar 234

They also done recons in Italy

My dad was bombed at remagen ,they thought the Germans were shutting there engines off because they could not hear them coming.

@@kellyreim6627 My dad was there with anti-air artillery. He too witnessed the Ar 234 attacks. Perhaps they knew each other. Dad told me they could not shoot them down. Will ask him for additional info.

Sam glad to hear your dads still with us , dad was 104 div comp c 329 engr. Dads been gone since 05.

@@sammorgan1963 i love the old vets, there stories must be told before it's lost forever.

This was a bomber and reconnaissance aircraft. It only had two fixed rearward pointing 20mm guns (sighted by periscope) in the rear fuselage. That Ar 234 would have had to to park itself in front of that bomber (which very likely had a nose turret) in order to shoot at it Ridiculous. There were plans to create a night fighter variant WITH forward facing weaponry and radar but this was never built.

Do you think WWII pilots could hear the aircraft that shot them down??? Hint: They couldn't.

Stephen Gardiner What about the AR234b? That was a night fighter, that could possibly have scored a kill or two?

Yes they could

You feel so insulted about that? History is history. Stop cencoring everything

@@german_spirit7545 Yes, I do feel insulted. It would have been easy to delete the swastika emblems.

@@prieten49 Are you winging about everything? To me your communist sign looks also terrible and I say nothing.

@@german_spirit7545 No, I only "whinge" when it comes to the unnecessary glorification of fascist symbols. The hammer and sickle symbol is equally despicable to me, but it accurately describes the loyalties of the Republican Party in the USA which is referred to as the "Grand Old Party." But you did say something.

@@prieten49 Cencoring is just the style they did too. You obviously like their style. Congrats

she look sooo good but always always a nazi project sound from the usa gb fr and.... they use all the german technic .. still today 2019

Dave Verster so did the British! but didn’t need to risk them falling into enemy or Russian hands!

Pat,Frank Whittle was years behind the combined German effort..and when the Brits got their hands on some of these brilliant designs,rectified their design flaws. Read Whittles own story,as also what led to the first jet engines designed in Britain...German tech..go research.

Dave Verster the British had jets up and running in the latter part of WW2 - that is history, many German designed jet engines were highly unreliable and of very short life - that is also history, Whittles original designs were unlike most modern jet engines, and that is one reason for the ‘twin boom’ aircraft which flourished for a while, but the fact remains that Britain had functional jet powered aircraft in the later years of WW2.

@@pcka12 The Gloster Meteor also grew up properly first after the war. Air fights between German and British jets did not exist in World War II. All German designers were in the US or in the Soviet Union after the war. The Soviets were fortunate that all the major aircraft factories were in their occupation zone. They dismantled everything there and deported all together with about 500 technicians to the Soviet Union and, a few years later, they had the same technology as the Americans and British. The Western Allies have made a big mistake, they should have Stalin show the stretched middle finger and rather occupy all of Germany. The chance was there, but They missed the chance on the river Elbe and have even withdrawn from already occupied areas. They gave the power to a false friend who threatened the world more than the Nazis afterwards ... until today. Stalin fucked the western allies ... they should have fucked him first along with the rest of the German army, as Patton suggested.

Folke Stender the British labour government post WW2 sold Stalin jet engines, Stalin couldn’t believe his luck, the British had such outstanding internal combustion engine aircraft at the end of the war that committing jet models was unnecessary (although some V 1s were intercepted by jets), the physiological limitations of human beings have been a more critical factor in fast aircraft than the absolute performance of the aircraft until electronic systems became available to compensate for human limitations which were already limiting performance of the ‘man machine’ partnership by half way through WW2

Turn the sound down you unregistered coward!

@@spottydog4477 dang

nova6 killer306 lol 😂

They had to market the programme to maintain and increase funding, not only to Goering and Luftwaffe brass, but much more importantly to Speer and ultimately to Hitler. Having to prove that the project would help "win the war" meant showing it could do so in multiple ways. Hence the variants. You're right; given the stage of the war and the dire situation they were facing, you'd think they'd set highly rational priorities to get the most from the resources expended. But the upper reaches didn't worry about that, because they were convinced to the end that they were going to win. I don't think the the full story of why they believed that has been written or otherwise released to the public, though Dr. Mark Felton has at least two videos that mention Nazi plans to launch nerve gas attacks on the east coast of North America.

You'd produce variants if the alternative was been sent to fight in the army.

Cause they didnt, engineers inspired those planes not the nazis silly! 😃

The Canberra was a scaled up Meteor…

@@hareeballsac9777 Operation paperclip...also being a Nazi does no preclude you from Engineering..How dare you call me Silly when your sentence self-contradicts.

@@xadrikxaulxu 1. being an engineer in 1940s Germany does not make you a nazi. You certainly can be both however. 2. The first RATO flight that occurred in the usa was in 1941, long before paperclip. but even earlier, several countries around the late 20s (Germany included which was actually the Weimar at the time) were developing it, and the first successful flight was in the ussr 1931. 3. The Canberra was probably inspired by the me 262, sure. But the 262 wasn't made by the nazis, it was was made engineers and scientists who lived in nazi Germany. That's like saying that democrats built the m1 garand, or republicans built the f104 star fighter. Sure, the people who worked on them may have supported those parties or lived under them, but nobody ever says that democrats or Republicans invented those things, but they say (erroneously) that the nazis invented something. 5. The nazis were a political party is what I'm trying to say. They are involved in inventing these things as much as any other polticsly party is with their countries inventions... not at all. So no, my sentence did not contradict.

@@hareeballsac9777 1, I do not concur with much of what you have expressed here, 2. Let us both be satisfied with our opinions. 3. Good Day to you, there is no need for you to ever again cross my path.

caused no end of problems and abandoned

+ralroost einsnulldrei Yes and no. There was nothing revolutionary about the AR234 other than its engines, and the British were already producing their own jet fighters. Though in theory German axial-flow engines were a superior design, 1940s metallurgy wasn't advanced enough to make them viable as witnessed by their very short life expectancy of around 25 hours. By contrast some original British centrifugal compressor engines are still functional today, 70+years after being manufactured. The real R&D from which the allies benefitted was in swept wing research as used in the me262 and some Delta wing designs from Horten. The reason German designers worked themselves ragged, as you put it, was that German troops were losing and retreating on every front and Hitler was funding every possible avenue of research in an effort to come up with some kind of magic wonder weapon that would turn the war. Fortunately, that didn't work. Engineering is all about incremental developments, there are no magic leaps.

CaptHollister I never said the AR 234 itself was exceptional... Axial flow are generally regarded as superior, as far as I know centrifugal engines were dropped relatively quick. I seem to recall metallurgy being advanced enough, german industry just didn't have access to the required metals thanks to bombing so they used some crappy alternative of nickel coated steel (or something) which gave the engines a terrible lifespan. The allies did indeed benefit from swept wing research, not to mention flying wing designs, early helicopters, early guided missiles, and most importantly the entire V2 program.

Not so much free, don't forget the incridible cost of war, certainly not wanted by Usa !

The greatest thieves - Westerners

Yeah, and......? Germany took a gamble by 1) Listening to Hitler at all. 2) Actually believing in taking on the world. 3) GIVING so many countries the incentive to grind the entire country into dust. 4) Pissing off 'allies' by cutting their throats when it was perceived convenient. That's what ya' get when you try to fuck the whole herd... castrated.

Actually the 2stroke engines could be started electrically from the cockpit, the pull starter was a back up.

It's the same plane, Lockheed just kept on with already established German designs and blueprints from the war offered them by Operation Paperclip.

WolfKotenberg actually not.(I think?) when the British shipped it over it was in three sections and damaged... ITS BEING RESTORED TO FLYING CONDITION TODAY!!! WOOOOOO

no

The integration of jet engines into the wing is a heuristic approach. Air flow on upper and lower wing surface are not even. Therefore it is always better to attach them on the lower surface, preferably on pylons.

It was used for sighting to fire the backward facing guns.

For ditching due to unreliable engines?

Sujeet Oommen thanks sujeet

@@darkryde1 guns only fitted to prototypes ... the periscope was for sighting bombs

what happened to the pheiffel

Propeller??

@@henrikschultze1668 Pfeil (Arrow) aka Ameisenbär (Ant-bear) - Dornier Do 335. Projekt Feiffel was another sort of things ...

I like them!

Before 2 years were out the US had the A bomb and UK had jets.

@@thebeautifulones5436 and the Red Army would have spent a year on the Channel Coast. The JS III heavy tank was entering service in May 1945 ...

Fascinating technology .

You are probably talking about the Henschel HS 293 D .

Wings of the Luftwaffe from History Channel

trolley was to save weight and avoid hydraulics

Actually that is just patently false, the American Dr.Robert H.Goddard developed the very first liquid fueled rocket in 1926 and worked on a gyro controlled guidance system for it as well. America already had a working jet engine by 1939, the idiots in power did not think any more development was needed so shit canned the whole works. UGH!

@@Shortsircut1 don't bother using reason with a Nazi fanboi, he won't care about facts or history.

Your chances would have been a lot better !

I found one on the beach at Pax River but nobody would believe me so it ended up crushed by a bulldozer. I got the oil pump and actuator off it. There is tons of stuff dumped just off shore. You can find it by the off limits area in the water.

turn the volume dowm dumb ass

If that is true, why did they lose the war?

@@phlodel Lack of resources?

I hate it when they do that colorized stuff is fine but random sound affects that usually aren't even from the same engines/guns

But the title of worlds first jet bomber still goes to Germany.

The chinese are your best students, especially when it comes to stealing intellectual property. My sympathy is on their side, because they do it without murdering millions in the process. Let`s see if the US will have the honor of being rated a 2nd rank economy in 2050. With Trump going on, I have my doubts.

What a load of crap, do some research! Sir Frank Whittle and Dr. Hans von Ohain essentially were developing very similar turbo jet engines at the same time in different countries in the late 1920's. Whittle was the first to patent the idea in 1930 but von Ohain was the first to stick it in an airplane in 1939, so both get credit. America did not have a working jet engine until 1939 and the idiots in power did not think any more development was needed so shit canned the whole works.

What a dickhead, de Havilland very closely followed by Avro Canada both had civil jet airliners in the air well before the Americans.

@@Shortsircut1 So, in short - we have to thank Germans for it.

@Michael Corner Don't get your panties in a knot, Sir Frank Whittle's jet engine might have been of a different design, but he was still one of the first 2, and he patented his first, and I did give credit to Dr. Hans von Ohain for his as well. As for rockets that title belongs to the American Dr. Robert H. Goddard, he was long before Von Braun. The first programmable computer could belong to several, the first in my opinion would be Charles Babbage in 1822. The difficulty comes from "what exactly is a computer", technically the abacus was the worlds first computer. As for submarines, the first one was actually built in Equador in 1837 by Jose Rodriguez Lavandera. The first military submarine was the turtle built by David Bushnell in 1776. The first aircraft to break the sound barrier was the Bell X1, which did not have a swept wing. American prop driven planes in WWII P-38, P-51, P-47 were far superior to what the Germans had in the air including the Me-262 which needed it engines rebuilt about ever 10 hours of running time. I am not saying the Germans did not have brilliant people, I am just not going to give them credit for every modern advancement on the planet. Many, many countries have exceptionally brilliant people creating many new and innovative things everyday.

@Michael Corner Actually no genius, the Chinese invented the gun powder rocket. Goddard invented the liquid fueled and multi staged rockets, entirely different things. Sir Whittle's jet engine was still a jet engine, just as von Ohain's was. it still operated on the same principles. A gun powder rocket and a liquid fueled rocket/multi stage rocket are entirely different. Now if you want to give the Chinese credit for inventing the very first surface to air missile then go for it!