Get 10% off your first site and domain - Every click goes to help me buy a XB-51 www.squarespace.com/found Merch Store! www.foundandexplained.shop Check out the thumbnail art here: www.artstation.com/artwork/EvVo34 NEW CHANNEL: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qXxl5Ef5lFg.html Discord: discord.gg/4x7zTbr53W My News Channel: ru-vid.com/show-UCD3cl0MmX6fGZzeAHt4JWJA Join this channel to get access to perks: ru-vid.com/show-UCpM4zrZ9c_apiEj6CApj2ywjoin Patreon: www.patreon.com/foundandexplained
Agreed. IMHO much of this had to do with so few engines that were reliable exist for aircraft. Concentration of reliable tech in engines seemed to me to be a large constraint in aircraft and rocket design. A reliable engine is produced and engineers just add or subtract depending on requirements. The Ford Tri Motor, BAC 146, Convair B36....myriad aircraft would just add/subtract the same engine designs as needed. Handful of engines for hundreds of designs. Could be wrong, but anecdotally seems to track.
This thing had the maneuverability of a supertanker - I remember reading how, in flight comparisons with the English Electric Canberra, it was described as having a turn rate that encompassed half the state....Additionally, it was lightly stressed to a 3.7 load factor so any king of aerobatics while carrying any reasonable military load would have been a no-no, especially in the dense air of low-level attack.
I had a very good friend of mine whom passed this past year. He worked for Martin from the late 40's to the early 70's. He was instrumental for the weapons systems and egress systems of the P-6M. While working on several missile systems for Martin he just happened upon sleek ship as he called it. The XB-51 was one of his favorite planes of the era. Un fortunately neither made it into full production with the Mariner only about 3 or 4 examples. Thanks for posting this video because it reminds me of his friendship.
The F-111’s engines weren’t flammable. The videos of flames shooting out the tail were aircraft dumping fuel, which posed no risk to the aircraft or crew. The F-111 was retired by the USAF due to budget cuts, not due to engine problems.
I think you're being exceptionally kind to the XB-51. Let's be honest, it was a cool looking but fundamentally flawed design and dangerous to fly. In flight trials, the Canberra didn't just edge it out in a few areas, it kicked its ass in every category except top speed - and it wasn't even that much slower.
Impossible to balance it. It is superior to Canberra, higher top speed, bigger bomb load. Which means it should be at least 8.0BR, good luck surviving all the missiles coming at you
Those photos the military always do, when they have a piece of equipment with all the ordinance it can use, I bet there's a manual which covers how to set these photos up, like with measurements and angles and such.
You picture the Mercator in it's initial, short-wing version; Once Martin realized that it was better suited to long-range missions as a Recon/Attack, it aimed to give the US Navy a shore-based patrol bomber that was fast enough (under full power) to Scoot away from most enemy jets of the day. The XB-51, however was to be 'As Fast ' as most enemy jet fighters, And still have guns to Strafe or Dogfight with. Basically, an A-26 Invader, on Steroids!! My only Issue with it is the front-jet-engines being slung Low enough to have Taxi-/take-off/-landing issues with Debris Intake, and the lack of Afterburners for Combat-Thrust. Otherwise, it was a great Design and had Mission versatility inclusive in it's layout & build.
The only thing I can think about that engine placement is that it would allow the plane to land and take off on short runways, but the whole thing is super weird. The other problem I have is that T- tail. Not a good idea for combat. That tail has an engine and a T-tail. A lot of complex machinery that goes kaboom with a single bullet.
And most of the bombers doesn't have offensive machine guns, let alone auto cannons for a reason. But there will never be one single type of equipment/vehicle is capable to single-handedly win a war so the concept itself is absurd (at least for me).
I feel like the XB-51 could've been improved if they just stuck the engines at the back or on the wings. This would've also kept them further off the ground, reducing foreign debris injection during landing. Great video, love this bomber.
This plane had spoiler roll control. The plane had a variable incidence wing pivoting on the rear spar. The bicycle gear and engine placement left a thin, clean wing. For such an advanced aircraft, the prototypes did well, eg didn’t crash early in the test program as was so often the case. (For instance, Consider the dismal record of the F100 chase plane) The Canberra was chosen for the reasons stated, but also because it was more mature and a war was on. William Holden fortunately flew the XB102 before his death bombing the bridges at Toko Ri. The good news was taking Mickey Rooney with him.
Interesting aircraft and an interesting design too, I love the whaleback-looking curve of the profile. I would have loved to see more of those in the air.
I grew up in the early 60s in a suburb of Minneapolis. Every now and then we'd hear sonic booms! I've researched this and it was B 58s practice targeting the city! It would have been cool to know that it was XB 51s!!
The XB-51 was a huge airplane for a low level bomber or ground-support attacker, and powered by three low-powered turbojet engines typical of that time it would be an obvious failure. Sanity prevailed. Its German missile lines were evident, via the Matador missile.
I think if they had reinforced the wing and given it some wing slats despite the obvious weight increase they could’ve gotten a much more nimble aircraft. Decreasing some bomb load for an increase of fuel would also be essential maybe like wingtip fuel pods? Aircraft like the F-89 were also experimenting with rockets that had HE-VT this aircraft while not a fighter with fighter armament could do some serious interception damage if not laden on a full load and ran only cannons, rato and rockets alternatively.. The AJ-1 Savage was a nice looking aircraft. Ruined by the fact they didn’t give it built in guns, Something remedied by the prototype AJ-2. I believe simply a different wing design would have increased performance substantially. Might’ve cost more who knows but swapping the wings and piston engines out for jet engines would be a good move and a easy way to repurpose the AJ-1 airframes once jets caught up.
I liked the movie with the XB-51 as "experimental fighterjet". It was a good story about a pilot who had to proof that e still is able and trust wort after being a prisoner of war by the enemy and released back to the USA.
Yes - the XB51, so good the air force didn't buy it. It could not have 'won' the Korean War because it was not up to the specification. It looked 'innovative but really was just a set of pieces pushed together, which did not work in terms of performance improvements. The engines of that period were not unreliable at all. The Canberra used the RR Avons and these were manufactured under licence in the US and powered many types. The B57 used the alternative engine for the Canberra, the AS Sapphire, which also built under licence in the US and used in other US airframes. Martin did pioneer the Rotating Bomb Bay but as far as I am aware only one other aircraft used it, the Blackburn Buccaneer.
Canberra bomber out performed this aircraft considerably. This B-51 was a bomber that had limited strength of the airframe thus was limited in pulling Gs and maneuverability and the range compared to the Canberra was considerably less. All B-51 produced prototypes crashing. Production of the Canberra was delayed by years due to the amount of modifications requested.
les ingénieurs allemands ont laissés leur "patte" ici avec cette position basse en fuselage des réacteurs : cf. Ju.287, He. P1068-01-84, Me. P.1102 et pour les entrées dorsales : Horten Ho. X (ref : german jet genesis, David Masters / ed. JANE'S)
8:40 "flying wing XB-49, which we've got a video" doesn't make any sense. The correct construction would be "flying wing XB-49, about which we've got a video".
The story and information are fascinating, but the fake film effect is so distracting this turned into an audio-only experience for me as I pushed the video to a background tab. The effect doesn't fit the high quality 3d renders, and doesn't make sense when overlayed on top of the archival footage that clearly wasn't from damaged film. It also just looks cheesy because real film doesn't degrade this way unless run through damaged equipment (cracked rollers, misaligned film gates) for years upon years. When the content and story are this great, please don't tarnish the experience with cheesy VFX on top!
You missed two things. First, the main reason for it's failure - it was very difficult to fly compared to what the average USAAF medium bomber pilots were used to. The training demands and likely pilot failure rate were simply unacceptable. The Canberra's flying and handling was much more like the medium bomber aircraft that it was replacing. Second, its second crash is recorded. At 1:20 in the film below, see how an experienced pilot who was unfamiliar with the XB-51 was caught out by its unusual handling characteristics ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ZQ0rPecIPTM.htmlsi=qaQf5hYzlHtB34VR
In flight evaluations this plalne took sooo very long to turn around for a notger pass that the other planes it was compared to did three more attacks that i the same time.... so while being fast and sleek it was just bad for the job it was intended for and for that reason dropped. No one in the airforce at that time ever thought that not putting this thing into service was anythin other than a good idea
I look at this Plane and it reminds me of dozens of german Studies about swept wings and several Jet-engine Layouts... don't get mad, i don't say it's German, only it looks like...
I think the XB 51 was a very beautiful aircraft, but I would think that it would have made a better fighter (as seen in the movie version) as the Gilbert XF 20.👁