Sad but to an extent understandable. She can be considered to be among a group of aircraft known as the super props. A generation of prop fighters that arrived just as the jet age started kicking off. They started her earlier than many of those but by the time they'd ironed all the kinks out... Sadly she got to per-production just too late to be worth the expense in a military already looking at downsizing and new technologies while being ahead of her time. (yeah strange as it sounds US mil was prepping to downsize for a good chunk of the last year of WWII.
Back during concept trials, with an indoor electric model, that back moving surface is not the elevators but a flap that works in reverse. Up pushed the rear down and allows for really short takeoffs and landings. the elevators and ailerons are the outboard surfaces. Originally his test model was hinged at the rear and it took off almost vertically,
XF5U looks amazing! Someone made a pilotable ultralight version of F4U: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-sFiwdv_ozJc.html I wish someone would now make a manned pilotable version of XF5U
So beautifully made, and looks like it flies very well. You must be very highly skilled both in aeronautics and model building. Do you have any further information about this project? I'm sure that many people would be very interested in your detailed analysis of the design and prototyping etc that you did which led to the development of this superb model.
Wow! Beautiful. Just been doing a little work on mine, ended up watching an old video and saw this! Certainly puts mine COMPLETELY in the shade. Great job!
Maybe it would be easier to fly if the props where similar to those of the original. Zimmerman must have intended a specific wing in prop stream effect over the whole span and not only at the tips.
Something like54 years ago, I purchased a vacuformed, 1:72 model of that aircraft at The Squadron shop in Detroit. It had the usual problems in construction that were common to vacuform in those days, but it was a totally unique aircraft that necessitated the purchase. But to see the accuracy, and detail in that R/C model was astounding. My only complaint was that dummy in the cockpit. It looked like an afterthought. To me, it was jarring, when compared to the beautiful perfection of that replica. Well done, Sir!
Such a pity we couldn't see the prototype fly. The design was radical and so innovative. This RC version is more than a teaser to me and I would love to see it fly with its realistic 4 blade giant propellers. Thanks for the video.
From what I've read about the prototype aircraft that was a scale distance take off run. It was supposed to be able to take off in practically no roll if there was any kind of wind over deck.
Beautiful model & great flying. Kudos for that. But if there's a more inappropriate music bed out there for the subject at hand, I'll bet it'd be hard to find.
that thing flies really good!!! seems really stable and forgiving (considering that it lost a control surface midflight and had some landing gear problems)!!!
As I understand it the first prototype, painted yellow, was the flying pancake. Saw it at the museum at Love Field in Dallas. The flying flapjack never actually flew except for a few test hops.
The flying pancake was developed at the end of the war and do to it's stability and aerodynamics would have been the fastest next to jet propulsion. I would enjoy seeing a complete aircraft with people flying them instead of Cessna death traps.
@@chrisambrose8838 There are old pilots. There are bold pilots. There are no old pilots. But, you likely heard that 52 years ago. Maybe take about 35-55% off next time before posting. Maybe pump the breaks. Your flight career is antidotal and not a fact. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of aviation fatalities are...wait for it... Light General aviation. I believe it's over 85% percent of aircraft crashes/incidents are pilot error. I'm happy you've had a long flying career and a safe one at that. I was a pilot, am a pilot still? Was a pilot. Either way... many pilots dies in Cessna. Regardless... this is RU-vid man. Not Twitter! Maybe offer s reasoned argument regarding an RC Plane and a popular training aircraft For instance, Cessna 172s are responsible for .56 deaths per 100k flight hours. Not bad really. But, 0.00 pilots died...flying the pancake. Soooooo... is the Cessna a "death trap" compared to pancake? Hard to say since the pancake only flew 186 times. It was off to a hell of a safety record...lol. Again.... RC plane...RU-vid... maybe post when you're in a good mood? I don't know.... maybe it's me but...came of as kind of aaaaahhhh....hmmmm. Dick?
Why does the opening footage show 4-blade adjustable pitch props, but the flying is done with 2-blade props? Are there 2 different models on display here? Beautiful flying,by the way!
Those are made for static display only. The power systems cannot swing the bigger propellers thus small diameter flying propellers are used which match the power system.
Fascinating aircraft. This aircraft inspired the design for the Cylon raider in Glen Larson's Battlestar Galactica (70s). Very cool. Thanks for sharing.
Cool plane and dug the wah-wah guitar track as well. Seemed appropriate to me despite what the naysayers complain about. Anyone who takes the time to build this, video it and share it with us has the right to make his own backing track as well :) If I was to build a modern plane, using this as a guide, I think I'd need some computer guided stabilization and a clear floor so I could land it better. Those wings are so wide I'd never see the ground.
I have to wonder if this design deserves to be revisited. With fly-by-wire capability it strikes me as excellent platform for a dedicated CAS aircraft.
Mr. Wherle I would like very much to talk with you about your model, and, if possible, get a copy of the plans. Can you please reply to my home address: n99jh1@gmail.com Best Regards Joshua
That's quite an accomplishment. I've seen flight videos of earlier versions with fixed gear. This is a very substantial project. Never mind about wingspan, it wouldn't help. Any data available like weight, amp hours used for the flight, etc? How long was the flight?
Original scale props were not needed for flight. Even on the V-173, they cost it speed and did not help for STOL performance or efficiency at cruise. See the video "Flying Heel Lift" of the Arup S-2 of the '30s, for the originator of the Vought/Zimmerman plane.
Well done and expert craftmens. Curiosity question... props don't appear to be scale. In real life they were much bigger on only 80hp engines. So, my guess is...hard to put bigger motors in it because maybe weight or CG and huge props on smaller motors would likely cook? I figure there was a design restraint considering the artisan quality build! Well done! Such a cool design by Zimmerman taking advantage of the laws of physics and aerodynamics!
Gut gemacht. Gibt es sowieso irgendwann könnte ich ein paar Tipps oder Pläne für das Modell bekommen? Ich versuche, meine eigenen zu bauen, aber es geht nicht gut Vielen Dank
What might have happened if they took the radial engines out and put in turboprop engines out at the tips? Put an only if one engine failed, connect with a clutch to drive the other prop to get down? How about a modern version as a commute, short field airliner?
+Łukasz Bus The efficiency of the original propeller is not sufficient. Because the air thickness adapted not to scale the model can be. Therefore, you need a larger propeller speed.
Absolutely fantastic aircraft. Your skills are incomparable. A complete treat to watch this level of skill put to use in creating something truly unique. Magnificent! Do you think this aircraft could have flown with twin turbo jet engines?
+Ottmar Wehrle Wasn't that the original idea for the XF5U, to advance the state of the art in aviation science? What not design and build an advanced XF6U using modern turbo jet technology?
+zeogiannes The XF5U was a Prototype for VTOL or STOL Aircraft. But It should faster fly as 800Km/h. The XF6U is a very different Construction with "normal " Wing, horizontal- and vertical-stabilizer and Turbine engine.
+Ottmar Wehrle I didn't know that a model FX6U existed, what I meant by my comment was, take the XF5U airframe design as it is, remake it and adapt two turbo jet engines in the same positions as the prop drive engines, then test it and see how it performs. If successful testing ensues, rename it something like XF5TU for the new advanced model of your own. The turbo jet engines will eliminate the need for counter rotating motors and propellers. The added thrust might enhance the original speed capabilities
+zeogiannes That would probably work well today. At the time, propeller turbines were not widespread and certainly not reliable. With the advent of jet propulsion systems such kinds of STOL systems were abandoned and the designers have focused on speed. Only many years later they began with the construction of the Harrier and Osprey.
This Lockheed Skunkworks plane was supposed to cave been destroyed when the USAF abandoned the project. But in 1958 - when I was 10 - one flew very low over our house. I saw it in the distance from my bedroom window in the rear of the house when it was still quite a distance away. I didn’t know what it was but I saw that the props were near the end of the wings. I sprinted the front hallway and had just gotten outside the front door when it came over the roof at less than 200 feet. A year or so ago I got a map of Atlanta and a ruler which I laid over the route. Then I looked at where it was headed. Lockheed Georgia in Marietta was straight ahead. About the same year a Navy blimp flew over the church next door while I was climbing a small tree on that property. I heard close by multi engines so I jumped out and looked up. Boy was I surprised! I told this story to the former blimp pilot were wax relegated to flying a desk when he swore me into the Navy as an Aviation Reserve Officer Candidate.
The XF5U was not built by Lockheed or its Skunkworks, but by Chance Vought, as can be seen by the Naval code letter U which was the code for Chance Vought. This is also shown by the F4U Corsair which was also built by Chance Vought. In Naval designations, the last letter is the manufacturer, not a model number, as it is with Air Force designations.
Beautiful aircraft. Since I was a boy I've wondered what it would look like in flight. Now I know but it would be much better to hear it without the music drowning out the sound of the engines.
