The WW2 Super Fighter That Was Built Backwards | Curtiss XP-55 Ascender [Aircraft Overview #76] 

Are you Hush Kit?

And if you're not, have you considered a collaboration?

Dornier Do 335 Pfeil, please.

Could you do a video on the French arsenal vb-10 plane? It's quite a unique design

Hello, could you make a video on the Handley Page airliners? Especially the H.P.42/H.P.45?

My personal observation, on many trips traveled via I-75 from Michigan'ski to parts Kentuckistan, that virtually all of Ohio (the southeast corner being an exception) was near'about as flat as a dead level plate of piss, or even just a bit slightly flatter than that!

@@mustafasfleas7342 No, there's a few hills around Dayton and Wright Patterson. The whole area is in the Miami Valley.. You can't really drive out of the Dayton area without driving up some pretty big hills. Wright Field is at the bottom of the hill and Patterson Field is at the top.. The US Airforce Museum is on Wright Field. They usually fly from Patterson these days.

I have a few friends that work at wright patt :) awesome to read your story

I knew a guy who lived nearby during WWII and released a paper candle balloon that flew over the field. It went down in flames over the field and the MPs scoured his neighborhood looking for who they thought was intentionally trying to sabotage the war effort. He remained quiet and was never caught.

WP museum is my Disneyland. Never been to DL, but WP twice.

Looks like a fine aircraft for sky piracy.

Crimson Skies ! my brain said as soon as i seen the thumbnail. what a game, what a lovely game.

Please note, one of the planes with this plan in Crimson Skies is made by Curtiss Wright. So it's a definite art imitating weird life thing

Glorious!

The Crimson Skies starter aircraft, the fictional Hughes P21-J Devastator, is definitely based on this, with added wing and contra-rotating propellers. The Henschel P.75 and Blohm & Voss P.170.01 also lended their appearance to Crimson Skies planes.

With a modern flight control system it might be regarded much better. Far too early and trying too much.

@@seriousthree6071 G'day, What do you think that you mean, "too early" ? Alberto Santos Dumont, the Brazillian midget millionaire, first flew "14-Bis", his CANARD layout Biplane, in France, in about 1905. The Wright Brothers 1903 Flyer was a CANARD Biplane. To get a Canard to fly properly does NOT require "modern control systems" ; it merely requires that the Proportions, Weight and Balance, and Thrustline are suitably arranged. And, for whatever it's worth, "Canard" is French for "Duck"..., and Ducks have long necks, and when Tail-First Aeroplanes are flying - because their Wings are at the back some Frog-Eater decided that Tail-First Aeroplanes look like Ducks in flight, so they were called "Canards...; and the term has less than nothing to do with whether or not the Nose Surface is a Stabiliser with movable Elevators, or whether it's an all-moving Stabilator. The fact that the Canard (Duck) Surface is at the front, and not at the Tail, is what makes the Canard a Canard. Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !

If a plane cannot be controlled by an inexperienced pilot in a fight then it is worse than scrap iron.

@@20chocsaday G'day, Tell that to all the people who fly PROPERLY-DESIGNED Canard Aeroplanes - Bert Rutan's Vari-Viggen, Vari-Eze, and Long-Eze..., for example. When I was about 8 years old, maybe 10..., I couldn't get the hang of setting the Decollage (difference between Wing Incidence and Stabilisor Incidence) and all my Chuck Glider Designs were crashing ; and then I read of how Canard Designs are UNSTALLABLE, and thus they're a lot easier to get to fly properly than are conventionally laid-out designs. I was high-speed Catapault-Launching Sheet-Balsawood Canard Chuck-Gliders, with 10-ft Rubber Strips and 30-ft Towline, in the back yard in 1970. My first-cut analysis of this thing suggests that the Canard was too small and the Mainplane was too far forward - with too much weight behind the Trailing Edge. The Ascender flew badly because it was badly designed, by a bunch of people who only vaguely knew what they were trying to do, and they started trying to teach themselves, with over a ton of Airframe, 1,200 Hp, and doing it all at 300 mph. Not every Aeronautical Brainfart emerges and smells like a Rose. Just(ifiably ?) sayin'. Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !

@@WarblesOnALot Yes, you got it PROPERLY.

@@dave23024 the p47 was called the thunderbolt, it was also designed by republic, the parent company of fairchild-republic who designed the a10

Its the plane to fight an airwar over Uranus

Was the proof of concept plane called the half-assed ender?

I built the Tamiya J7W many, many, years ago and thought it was a great-looking aircraft. So much so, that I have fantasised what the CAC Boomerang would look like as a canard-equipped pusher aircraft, with the 2 X 20 mm cannon and 4 x .303 machine guns in the nose, and the Wright Cyclone motor in the back. I know that the Royal Australian Air Force would not have approved it (too radical), but I still want to create one as a model, probably based on the Airfix Boomerang (it's cheap) rather than one of the other available brands of Boomerang. One can dream.

"That was mostly what Japan used for aero engines" Due to the simple fact that they had some amazingly good ones that were created during the 30s and early 40s. Had their industry been up to the task of massproducing them at good quality, most Japanese aircraft would have had 10-15% more power(and not required hours of "finishing" work by techs in units before replacement engines could be used).

@@brettcoster4781 Long ago, when I was a mad plastic modeller in my early teens, someone gave me a very poor quality kit of a Bf-109F. As I already had several good Bf-109's, I butchered it into a canard, inspired by the J7W, XP-55 and SAI SS4 I had read about in William Green's Warplanes of the Second World War pocketbook series. It made a fairly convincing looking "what if" aircraft.

The us did the same thing with the germans, and rumors are out there that we found some of there late era 109s the k's and the g 13s but mostly the Dora, i heard we came across some finished, unfinished and had them flying better than any existing allied aircraft. The germans were using really bad quality steel and the Jumo had overheating issues, we probably added better steal that conducted heat off the engine, and probably tinkered with the fuel and the absolute highest the jumo could operate at without knocking, that was the issue with it. The mw50 helped it not knock alot and was almost a 95% solution for it. Nobody knows the details, just claims about the results. So people can really only speculate, i get alot of people saying thats impossible to push more power out of the jumo, ive had others say thats not entirely true. So im not sure. But i bet we messed around with these aswell, but this is so far from anything at the time, this design was so alien pilots were probably sketchy about even test flying it, u need to bail ur hitting that rear prop lol, so they needid a way to have to prop destory itself right i think? but sometimes this wouldnt go off lol.

@@profo4544 Germany also had poor quality fuel. Which is part of why they pushed hard for jets, because it didn't matter much there.

I second that recommendation, I was actually there yesterday!

Yes, there is also an SR71 there, and a Bede pusher with the Honda engine. Very interesting museum. Also the air and space museum in San Diego has a lot of very unique aircraft. both are well worth the trip. And there is another near San Diego in El Cajon, at Galespie field. Oh, and the museum in Wichita Kansas.

@Fred brandon Not every part of the west coast is Portland, Seattle or San Francisco.

@Fred brandon aww, guy from jersey is jealous.

@Fred brandon made me laugh.

With the huge difference being expected airspeed. The Wright Flyer needed the lift added by the elevator and the plane was slow enough for the pilot to handle it.

Also looks a lot like the Rutan Vari-Eze.

This

Didn't play the PC game but did play the tabletop one. The Devastator was fun to run.

They used real designs for crimson skies 🎃

The zeppelin aircraft carriers were real too by the way, they both crashed in a thunderstorm almost immediately though, and didn't have broadside cannons unfortunately :P

Going from Hamilton to Trenton DOES NOT take a "few" hours! !! As you have to contend with Toronto traffic. Budget 4 to 5 hrs for that trip!

Hey, thank you Canada for sending the Lancaster to airshows in the US. I never dreamt I would have the opportunity to crawl inside a Lanc but it happened at the "WW2 Weekend" in Reading PA! Also cool that it is painted to honor a Canadian Victoria Cross recipient.

@@RichNotWealthy here's a shocking fact. The museum that owns the Lanc doesn't get money from the government. They don't meet the conditions to get museum money. I was chatting with staff a few years back about it. I make sure to spend money there every time I'm in the area... picked up a hat for their 50'th anniversary.

Lancaster, what a beautiful beautiful aircraft that came out in WW2. Is all I can say about it. Will have to put that on my bucket list for sure. Would absolutely love to see a Lancaster in person.

badum tss

There, you've said it... ! I tried to find the wording to explain the oxymoron that I had in my head... like.. it's kinda futuristic, actually, but it still looks ancient.. I think that the reason for us seeing it this way is that it is, basically, a modern (for the time) Wright Flyer .. I mean, if you look at it, it is the same configuration

Grew up going there, it has a very special place in my heart.

The Corsair at the Air Zoo was built by Goodyear.

Came here to make sure that was said.

@@Brandon-vo3cb Small thing. Likely slip of tongue. (Script?) You stated that Scott Field was located in Missouri. Close! But not quite. Scott AFB was my final, active duty assignment. It was organized back in the day as a stop-over/support stop for dirigibles. The "Big Hangar" is still there. Akron, Macon and Shenandoah are not. During the '20s and '30s, Curtiss-Wright established numerous "fixed base operations" sites throughout the US. One of these remains active at St Louis Gateway Airport, formerly Parkes Field/University. These Curtiss-Wright facilities were very important for flight training. When I started flying in 1972, an FBO was still using a Curtiss hangar at Milwaukee, Wisconsin's Mitchel Field (KMKE). -- don't know if it remains standing.

The j7w is one of my favorite aircraft I really wish there was more information on it as well I feel like basically all the statistics currently available are sketchy due to the lack of testing

Unfortunately for the Japanese you are right, only 3 15 minute flights were done on 3rd, 6th and 9th of August (last two being the same days the Atom bombs were dropped). Flight was delayed as the engine was taking longer than expected to be built, and in early 1945 they wrecked one engine due to it prop-striking. Another prototype was completed but never got an engine to it. The designers noted major issues with the torque, unlike the XP-55 which was really quite disappointing in pefformance for the time the J7W didn't seem to be, but takeoff was said to be difficult and the aircraft flew at an angle the entire time due to the engine torque. The designers were supposedly confident they could fix this issue though. Arguably the J7W had far more potential as it wasn't underpowered to begin with, however that's just guesswork really.

The prototype Shinden still exists. It is part of the Smithsonian collection.

Sanka Mark B from sky crawler should be the answer on that question

The museum at Dayton is at least a 3-day trip to see it all properly. The place is enormous and the collection is stunning.

@@ryllharu I have been there well over 60 times. We lived 10 miles away, and I used to take my son 3 Saturdays a month starting shortly after he could walk, as long as he had been nice to his little sister that week. My son is 20 now. Since that time I have been back about 8 additional single day visits. I could give tours I know it so well. I read him every display, and sat through every video multiple times.

I grew up in the DC area. The Smithsonian Air and Space museum was one of my favorite places to visit, along with the Baltimore Aquarium. I now live in WV, only a few hour drive to Dayton, Ill have to get over there and check that out sometime, really sounds amazing.

Both most excellent museums, especially with the SR71, Shuttle, and expansive GA collection at the Hazy Center. I would submit also - the Museum of Flight in Seattle which has some incredible aircraft

Dropping the bomb did not do anything for getting Japan to surrender. Some Japanese generals already wanted to surrender, others wanted to surrender on the condition of getting to keep the emperor, others were determined to fight to the last man. After Hiroshima was destroyed, no General changed his opinion. Japan surrendered when they feared the imperial artefacts might fall into the hands of the American ground troops. The US knew before dripping the bomb that the Japanese Generals were discussing conditional surrender, and the US was willing to grant their conditions but still wanted to see if they could force an unconditional surrender. Just out of principle. But if the earliest possible end to the war would have been the priority, then US could have just offered Japan the deal they both wanted. The two atomic bombs were little more than a matter of petty insistence on unconditional surrender and of revenge after years of war

This sort of layout is used in many Burt Rutan designs. You may have seen one of those.

Considering Bell and Lockheed kinda got the first run at American jet fighters I don't think so. But funny enough the J7W which is relatively similar in design did in fact have plans for a potential jet engine