Click the link to watch more aircraft, heroes, and their stories, and missions ➤ www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes Join this channel ➤ kzread.info/dron/TTqBgYdkmFogITlPDM0M4A.htmljoin ➤ IG: instagram.com/dronescapesvideos/ ➤ TWITTER (X): tinyurl.com/m86k2ypf

@matt-ou2yl

2 ай бұрын

😊

@barrywhite9114

Ай бұрын

Thanks for Posting This!

@barrywhite9114

Ай бұрын

Aviation Will Save the World from Itself! Maybe Even frankly whittle down the Lies that Divide!

It's rather sad that two great men, Frank Whittle and Nicola Tesla, were betrayed by so many, including the governments they dedicated their patriotism to. God Bless these great men.

@SavingStarTrek

5 ай бұрын

Think it's likely Tesla was more messed up from doing his own work with very toxic chemicals/ fumes, etc.

@chriswilde7246

5 ай бұрын

It was disgraceful how Frank Whittle was treated..

@alvaropulido5245

5 ай бұрын

Look at all of yous… dick measuring with all this back and forth Tesla this Frank whittle that…. Just enjoy the video….. anyone not enjoying this video is a sissy

@Stuff-i-Like

5 ай бұрын

​@@chriswilde7246yes, the Brits and no doubt other governments treated many of their contributors badly like Polish Aircrew and Alan Turing.

@chriswilde7246

5 ай бұрын

@@Stuff-i-Like Totally agree...👍

I love this channel. I was taught so much about the various airframes of WWII. By a Tutor that I had for a few years around 1958-1961 ish. That early on knowledge turn into a passion throughout my life. That and my Stepfather was the owner of two C-47/DC-3’s and a Beachcraft twin that seated around 10? Passengers that took flights from Las Vegas to the Grand Canyon. Nevada Airlines. All of this past makes me very grateful for channels such as this.

@oceanhome2023

5 ай бұрын

mega upvotes

Enjoyed this video that took three days with roughly 3-1hr sessions to finish. My aunt's worked in the aviation industry both in jet engine blades and in aircraft manufacturing. I have worked briefly in the aviation field. Good to know the history behind it all.

The narrator incorrectly referred to the Grumman F4F as the Hellcat when in fact the F4F was the Wildcat. The much-improved version of the F4F Wildcat was the F6F Hellcat.

I'm just glad this film saw the light of day and is now on KZread. This is a video you SHOULD share with your friends.

About 1 hour in: man!! Those late 50’s mechanics had their work to do. Very interesting video. My neighbor is a modern mechanic. I have to talk about the differences. Love the channel!

I’d add too, that during the talk of radials being more reliable because of a lack of need to maintain coolant flow (which is completely valid by the way) Kurt tank, the designer of the fw190 remarked that he thought the bf109 was a race horse. But since this was a war, he wanted to build a warhorse. What I’m referencing is this: essentially all aircraft at this time were controlled by hydraulics. (Except noticeably not the Japanese zero, which was only cables, meant it was out classed at higher speeds) and for whatever reason did not have self sealing fuel tanks. So even minor hits would be problematic. Anyways, building a warhorse. Flight control surfaces controlled electrically. Not hydraulically. If it’s hydraulic, and gets punctured, that’s a loss of control authority. Electric? You can have multiple lines running to the control surface. One gets punctured. No problem. Warhorse, not a racehorse.

6:47 The little footsteps and odd random noises in these old black and white reels are hilarious.

although it’s crazy to think US Navy destroyers have four jet engines inside them, not including the three generators for a total of seven jet engines inside a destroyer

@andreweppink4498

16 күн бұрын

Crazy. Slurp fuel. Should've been like USCG. Use combined diesel and gas turbine.

I love watching this stuff. I’ve been around aviation for years. I was an avionics technician on P-3s 50 years ago. Then I worked at P&WA a couple of years on the assembly floor putting together JT-8s and JT-9s. I wanted to work in electronics and moved to Alaska and had jobs for over 30 years where I was flown all over the state in many kinds of aircraft including helicopters. One of the customers of the engines I worked on at P&WA was Alaska Airlines and I flew on them a lot to hubs where I got on smaller aircraft. I worked for a contractor turning up satellite communications for the FAA all over the state including ZAN which is the control center for Alaska airspace for a couple of years. Also worked on the microwave communications for the pipeline for 15 years. Most of the sites were only helicopter accessible to mountain tops. I’ve been to quite a few of the military radar sites also. I got paid to do some pretty cool stuff. Now I’m 70.

@martinda7446

5 ай бұрын

🤠🎖🏅🥇

@aymonfoxc1442

4 ай бұрын

Cool stuff indeed. I like hearing about people's stories and experiences, and KZread's ability to bring personal stories out of us never ceases to amaze me. Thanks for sharing.

@Taoshai

29 күн бұрын

0

It most certainly is fascinating how the evolution of a disaster happens and Petter explains it as only an experienced and professional can. I love hearing the breakdown and listing of all involved factors and how some of the systems work. For me it does seem mind boggling all the knowledge that the pilots have to maintain and keep on hand all the time whilst at the controls. While not a pilot myself I love aviation and the planes and have since my military days. Shows and docs like this give me a newfound respect and admiration for their knowledge and responsibility. Keep up the good work, Petter. Add me to your fan list!

All hype of inline engines in this video, yet the best aircraft of WW2 and post war piston engines were all air cooled radial engines. Such as Mitsubishi A6M "zero", Gumman F6F Hellcat, Fock Wulf FW190, P-47 Thunderbolt, B-17 Flying fortress, B-25 Mitchell, B-26 Marauder, B-29 Superfortress, all the way into the Vietnam war era with Douglas A1 Skyraider, and B-36 "Peacemaker" with its 6 radials and 4 jets that led to the B-47 jet.

@Roberta_Esposito

Ай бұрын

wasp , double wasp

@shannonmonroe5873

22 күн бұрын

Fock wulf….😂😂😂😂😂😂

The US Navy was biased towards the radial engine primarily because of its reliability, ability to operate with battle damage that would have brought down a liquid-cooled inline engine, and its ease of maintenance. Those were critical attributes when operating from an aircraft carrier and over water. Radial engines also evolved superior power to weight ratios than inline engines. The Army Air Force was less concerned about those positive attributes and valued the reduced frontal area of inline engines and its potential impact on drag. Frontal area was more a perceived issue than a real one. Liquid cooling provides its own drag penalties and both the radial-engined Focke-Wulf 190 and the Vought F4U Corsair benefitted from NACA radial cowling drag research to become two of the fastest single-engined fighters of WWII.

@billynomates920

5 ай бұрын

i watch greggs aeroplanes as well

@jamessolak1619

5 ай бұрын

LOL@@billynomates920 brilliant

@dickdowdell5813

Ай бұрын

@@billynomates920 Greg's is great! However, I'm 77 and the son of a WWII and Korean War carrier pilot was also an engineer. I acquired my opinions from someone who was there.

Simon, Please, credit where it is due… we’re not lagging that far behind!! Please keep up your brilliant work and sense of humour! Best wishes

In truth, the P-51c models were the most prevalent through the war. The very model flown by the brave men of Tuskegee. It was faster than the D model only just, but carried only 4 guns so it had less weight. Not only that the visibility was lower due to sharing the same body as its earlier A-36 and o.g. P-51 bretheren. The P-47 was also a MAJOR player in the war, often being called "the plane that won the war". These are great videos, a lot of people put a major emphasis on the P51D models but until later in the war most units just didn't have them yet.

@patrickkenney1080

5 ай бұрын

Yes-the 47 and 38 are the ones that slugged it out when the Luftwaffe still had their Aces.

That two stage mechanical supercharger that RR came up with was one of those ingenious innovations that made the Merlin's high altitude power with simplicity and compact design that used a single driveshaft with two carefully sized impellers that did away with the degree of intercooling problems that plagued the early P38s. It made the perfect match for a pilot friendly P51 that was really the secret of it's success at making green pilots into proficient combat pilots with little distraction. . . . that and it's relatively long legs. Like the A6M it had some very useful reach though it's a mystery why it took the 8th AAF so long to fit drop tanks to P47s. . Unless he had the strength of a pre puberty girl though Brown did overstate the Jugs compressibilty as any Jug pilot could've and did tell otherwise. It was known for out diving everything and being recoverable at it. The P51 has to go down as one of the great warplanes in any case.

@anthonywilson4873

4 ай бұрын

Eric Winkle Brown was one of the best test pilots out. The British used test equipment to test compressibility not judgement by individuals. The Commander of the US Eight Airforce (James Doolittle) asked the Brits to test the Lightning Thunderbolt and Mustang for Compressibility as a lot Lightnings and Thunderbolts were last seen by bomber crews in a high speed dives. Compressibility is where the airflow over the control surfaces is disrupted meaning they do not work, nothing to do with strength. It would be like trying to steer a car on ice, strength was not an issue. You had to slow down to establish correct airflow to pull out, many did not. The Lightning suffered worse than the Jug and did have additional control surfaces eventually fitted, but two boosted unreliable engines and less manoeuvrability meant its removal from the European theatre. The Jug also was also a great ground attack aircraft like the Typhoon. The Mustang with drop tanks had the range the speed the manoeuvrability to be the best escort fighter of the war.

@icewaterslim7260

4 ай бұрын

@@anthonywilson4873 I know Brown's version of it but the problem is that his Mach numbers dissent from everyone else's by quite a bit in that his are .71 and everyone else's including other RAF testing range from .78 to .82. The RAF tested the P47D to the equal of 450 mph at 20,000 ft which works out to Mach .826. I don't know why Brown's numbers are that low because the decision by the 8th AAF to go to the Merlin P51 had already been made before Doolittle took charge. . Any B17 gunner that had the time to watch for anything but incoming fighters would have about five seconds to watch US fighters disappear at 400 mph. There just aren't any records of P47s crashing into the ground en masse to verify any such claims. What there are reports of is P47s out diving Me109s and Fw190s and none of the opposite happening. Obviously if they had not recovered they wouldn't be writing post battle reports. . The 56th Fighter Group rewrote the tactics that Doolittle used to destroy the Luftwaffe at a time when drop tanks were finally used with their P47s and only two fighter groups had been delivered their P51s. They included adopting the Luftwaffe four finger formations in several stacks out ahead of the bombers to break up the Luftwaffe head-on attacks and top cover P47s 4000 ft above to dive on the Luftwaffe fighters and pick them off. So they continued to dive on and away from Luftwaffe fighters well after Brown's tests and Doolittle adopted those tactics for every fighter group in the 8th . The P51 was a damned good pilot friendly fighter that could be made quickly and was what the 8th AAF needed. The P47 had hardly been "useless" as Brown put it.

@jamessolak1619

3 ай бұрын

@@anthonywilson4873 ramblings of an old man, James Doolittle begged no one for an answer to Compressibility, the jug had dive flaps, nothing outdove that yet browns mach numbers had german fighters out diving jugs, last place any german fighter jock wanted to find himself was in a dive with a jug, any man that cannot find himself putting the word packard in front of the word merlin i take with a grain of salt

@evanfinch4987

Ай бұрын

P-38 could be run way overboost because it was a boost house baby. Those superchargers cant be field turnt for 30k+ foot operations with dat thruuuust.

@icewaterslim7260

Ай бұрын

@evanfinch4987 The problems with the P38 stemmed from trying to use the evaporative wing mounted inner-coolers for too long and the compression issue which really was a fatal problem for the P38s high altitude escort role until both issues had been dealt with by the P38L variant. Consequence of the USAAF having bought a fighter upon the crash of it's only prototype. All these technically advanced turbo second stage supercharged fighters cost lots of money and multiplied x 2 for the P38. And despite the numbers produced were not as conveniently suited for mass production as the simple, pilot friendly and relatively cheap to build P51 or F6F was. I believe the saying goes: "Amateurs talk strategy. Pros talk logistics." My Dad's 3rd Attack Group, 5th AAF found the Aces loaded P38 groups well appreciated though for escorting treetop parafrag missions against Imperial Japanese Army airfields. Their pilots were well practiced veterans by the time they got their P38s and could boast the 2 leading confirmed scoring US pilots of either theater of the war

i love Capn Brown, hes the real deal! Tough as Chuck Norris!

This story almost brings me to tears, it’s so infuriating. To have this man work himself to the point of exhaustion, and breakdown, even against the rejection and snobbery of the very bureaucracy he was trying to help, at the cost or his health and his family- only to have them finally respond by stealing his work and leaving him behind. “Because of the war, you must sacrifice, Mr. Whittle. Not the manufacturers stealing your work. They get quite lucrative contracts. Just you. You get nothing”. If parliament had an ounce of integrity, they’d have levied a small aviation industry tax of some sort to compensate this man and his family. And to add insult to injury- the pilot who invented the jet engine, never got to fly it. And, as if stealing it wasn’t bad enough. They even took his name off of it. It’s not the jet engine. It’s the Whittle engine The man has at very least earned that.

@paxtonrhoads7709

8 күн бұрын

It's quite sad, his love for aviation and flying makes it worse. His son speaking about him flying at his funeral makes it so much more tragic, that man loved everything he tried to do.

Dronescapes is some of if not the best content.

I swear...this is the 8th time I've seen this already, and it keeps getting better, everytime I see it! Props❤‍🔥❤‍🔥❤‍🔥

@Dronescapes

4 ай бұрын

Wow, interesting! I see your point.

Another great couple of documentaries 👌 👏

Commander Eric Brown (RIP), was an Tremendous professional and Pilot. The more I learn about the things he did During His life the more incredible are his accomplishments. Brown and Galant both are the epitome of aerial fighter pilots.

@martinda7446

5 ай бұрын

🤠💯

@Simon-jj2pu

4 ай бұрын

He was a Navy Capt (equivelant RAF rank of Group Captain or Army rank of Colonel), the commander is his CBE award

@peterparsons7141

4 ай бұрын

@@Simon-jj2pu i never understood why he was never promoted higher. I know it was an important achievement to him when he received his full commission. I’ve tried to figure out the promotion system, but I don’t understand. I would have thought he was articulate, bright enough, hard working an talented, that he should have reached a high level, but I guess he wasn’t a blue blood.

@simonturnbull5146

4 ай бұрын

@@peterparsons7141 I have a friend currently serving in the same position, in his late fifties, he denied himself promotion because all he wanted to do was fly and not manage flyers

this why i love KZread

Another amazing production!

The US Army Air Force ordered Bell to delete the turbocharger from the P-39 Airacobra; Bell didn't do it on their own. The stupid thing is the original concept for this plane was from a US AAF engineer who specified a turbo-supercharged V-12 engine, but he was removed from the program so couldn't defend the design.

@phutran-mu7vy

27 күн бұрын

j😊j😅j😅😅😊j😅ij😅😅jj😊ijjjjjj😊😊jj😊jjjj😅ijj😊j😅😅j😅jj😊j😅😅😅jjjj😅😅😅j😅j😅j😅jjj😅

@phutran-mu7vy

27 күн бұрын

😅ị 6:22 i😅😅ijjjij😅j😅😅jijjiij😅😅j😅jijijjj😅ujj😅jii 7:10 ujijj😅😅😅ii 7:56 i 7:56 jjij😅ịi😅ji😅ji😅i😅😅i😅ijjj😅ij 9:17 jju😅ji 9:46 ij😅jji 10:18 i😅ujiuijij😅i😅ijjj😅jjjj 11:40 jjuiii😅ji 12:13 i😅iujjjijjji 13:00 jjjji 13:20 ijuiui😅😅uuuj 14:31 uuii 14:58 iuijji 15:24 iuuuuuui 16:01 jjiju😅juuuujuuj😅uuuuuuuuuuuuuiuuuuuu😅huuijiuijijuuuuuuuiuuiuuuuiuiuu😅uuuiuuuuiuuiuuujiuuuiuuuhuuuuuuiuuủiuuiuiuiuiuuiuuuiuiuuuiuuuiuiu😅uuuiuuuiuuiuiuiuuuuuuuiuuuuuuuu

Obra maestra gracias por compartir tan valioso registro..

What a fantastic deco, thank you, keep up your great work 😊

My Dad designed Compressor components for many different engines at General Electric for both Military and Commercial Jet Engines. I know that he talked to Pilots about the Performance of General Electric Engines. There was an Aircraft in the 1970's that originally had Pratt and Whitney Engines and were retrofitted with General Electric's Jet Engines and the Pilots told my Dad verbatim "We can fly the Plane and not the Engine now!". I might add, that my Uncle's Specialty was designing Jet Engine Components for Turbines at General Electric. One word that stands out in my mind; Thrust

@garyyoung4074

4 ай бұрын

I can only think it was the F-14 Tomcat. Politics play important in military aquisation, most people don't realize it. Pratt put the TF30 in the A model Tomcat. As the weight increased during it's developement, PWA knew the older TF30 was not the ideal dog fight engine. In the F-111, (fighter bomber without all the throttle banging of a dog fight aircraft), the motor performed well but was prone to compressor stalls. Thus Pratt had another newer, more powerful engine in developement to put in the Tomcat. But when the B version Tomcat came around the contract was given to G.E. This engine (I believe) was a derivative of the F-110 flying in the "Bone". A more modern good engine that finally made the F-14 fly w/out regard to AOA ans other flight parameters. I did witnessed an emergency landing of a G.E. powered Tomcat when one engine stuck in afterburner and had to be shut down. As a pilot, I can tell you 'shit happens' no matter who makes the motor!!!

@Dronescapes

4 ай бұрын

Originally G.E. And Pratt and Whitney’s turbojets were British, thanks to Sir Frank Whittle’s invention. The Americans (thankfully) recognized his genius much more than his countrymen ever did. His was really an invention troubled by every possible obstacle thrown his way.

This was a super interesting 🤔 documentary 👏 thank you so much D.S very informative indeed 👍 ❤❤

@Dronescapes

5 ай бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it Jasmine

The Jackals of Mediocrity always encircle and nip at the heels of the visionary.

I wish we could see an episode on the planes with camera crew & equipment configuration, it’s resources and maintenance. maybe a bonus, the evolution of it all.

Gracias...oor tu trabajo, exelente

woke up to this, not disappointed

I love how the MiG21 Analog has the wing shape of the TU-144

Regarding Whittle, imagine that, the government steps in, takes something from a citizen (a revolutionary design), and then gives it to one of their buddies (Rover and RR). I’m sure no one in the government got paid huge kickbacks by Rover and Rolls Royce. I just hope Whittle was successful enough to never want for anything. Because he SHOULD have created a multi-billion dollar company given what he had. But, as usual, the government used fear and “the greater good” as excused to take what they wanted. Edit: I wasn’t even through the story. They even took over his company. Absolutely disgusting. Just remember Frank Whittle the next time you vote for someone that starts talking about protecting you or providing for you. If you give them that kind of power, they WILL use it, perhaps against you.

@user-xj6rr3yv8q

Ай бұрын

1935 Whittle gave up his patent on the gas turbine

While I'm no great historian, to say that Britain lost air supremacy over the UK .... I question... ?? As I understand it, Britain was fighting alone in 1939 and 1940, at the time when the US was very isolationist. Thankfully, slowly American attitudes changed, and 'Lend Lease' saved the UK until the US was attacked at Pearl Harbour. Since the start of war, the UK experienced 'The Blitz' and had fought and won the Battle of Britain against Germany with the Hurricane and Spitfire fighter aircraft, powered by the wonderful Rolls Royce Merlin engine. Packard thankfully built the Merlin engine for the P51 'Mustang' (as apparently named by the British, see 'War Factories Documentary' ) which was a perfect combination. The 'Mustang' was a major advance in aviation development. God bless America.

Incredible video thank you. I dont know how this is free‼️

I can’t get enough of this. 😊

Castor oil causes loose stool, the pilots drank a liquor to counteract this

He was sadly undervalued for his abilities, achievements and potential - and as a man - for so long. Our government would do well to learn the lessons

Somebody may have already pointed this out. But those 9 cylinder engines are called Radial engines. Rotary engines were designed by Wankle (think mazda RX series cars of the 70s and 80s) and were not used in airplanes that I am aware.

@michaeltagg492

5 ай бұрын

Wankel engines are a type of rotary engine because the 'rotors' rotate. Rotary fixed crank engines whereby the engine cylinders 'rotate' are rotary engines as well.

@Dronescapes

5 ай бұрын

This has been covered. Aero rotary engines are not the same as automotive engines. They are two different things.

@michaeltagg492

5 ай бұрын

@@Dronescapes That's not technically true, they are used to power military drones.

@Dronescapes

5 ай бұрын

A definition from a University paper: “The rotary aero engine is a special type of air-cooled radial engine, where the cylinders are arranged like the spokes of a wheel and turn around the crankshaft. The propeller is connected to the cylinders, while the crankshaft is fixed to the frame. The rotary aero engine, developed in 1908, set new standards of power and light weight within the aircraft industry. It was adopted by many pioneer aviators and widely used to set records of endurance, speed and height. Many aero engine manufacturers produced different models and variants of this type of engine, which was extensively used until the end of the First World War. The latest evolution of the rotary engine was the counter-rotary arrangement, which was devised and designed by the Siemens-Halske company.”

@stevenrosen2417

5 ай бұрын

Those older engines are called radial engines not rotary. I worked on those 40 yrs ago

Amazing documentary

It seemed a shame to me that just after hostilities Packard was faced with punitive new licensing fees and had to cease production. A chap I knew praised the Packards and their precious toolkits; all the parts were painted unlike the RR ones which had bare brass and copper.

Thanks Admin

@Dronescapes

5 күн бұрын

You're welcome!

Thank you for this GREAT content

@Dronescapes

2 ай бұрын

Glad you enjoy it!

what a nice way to put it. do well.

excellent!

Thw apollo was a really pretty plane

The merlin and every 12 cyl engine like the merlin was not an inline engine, they were V configuration engines with a 60 degree offset from each bank of cylinders

@wyatthull6613

4 ай бұрын

Thank you for pointing this out. It really makes it hard to legitimize this content with such a blatant mistake throughout the entire video.

@filster1934

3 ай бұрын

I thought the same thing, and was wrong, like you. An aero inline can be from several different configurations. Basically, if cylinders are in line, it's an inline aero engine. A V configured engine is an inline, but, an inline isn't necessarily a V engine.

Freedom created the GENIUS. MINDS ❤❤❤😮😮😮🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

Amazing

This is a fabulous video I will say

Life is a process. We are a process. The universe is a process.

Can you please make a video on the history and engines of Pratt and Whitney

Nice video. Some questions while I am watching it. How is the rotary engine supplied with fuel if all cylinders are rotating in high speed? If the in-line engines are more powerful, why the WW2 bombers were equipped with radial ones. FW-190, La-5 too?

Kapag wla ng missile gagamitin na ang superior tactic ang mag takbo at magtago.

what doesn't get mentioned when it comes to these engines is the compression ratio and the higher compression ratio of allied planes is the high octane fuel we could produce and the germans couldn't.

@Dronescapes

5 ай бұрын

Those German turbojet had a litany of issues, so many that the Soviets, after the war, ditched them in favor of Whittle’s engines for their MiG15. They were over engineered, flame-out issues, materials, fuels, etc. You have to wonder why three different German companies (Heinkel, Junkers and BMW) spent years and precious resources after the first flight in 1938, trying to develop an engine that by the end of 1944, when the Me 262 became operational, was still utterly flawed. It is certainly not something to write home about. It is interesting to note that Heinkel, and Von Ohain eventually tried to outright copy Whittle’s engine, but that attempt also went nowhere. You can safely say that if Whittle had 1/4th of the support that Von Ohain, or the German industry had in 1929, when his project was rejected and delayed by at least 5 long years, Britain would have had a working turbojet before the beginning of the war, wiping out any German ambition. They would have also secreted Whittle’s work, so Von Ohain would have had to work more with his own brain, rather than being able to compare notes. Von Ohain had a comfortable access to Whittle’s work by his own admission at the beginning of his quest to build a turbojet, when Whittle finally restarted working on his own engine with the few money he could privately raise, which was a drop in the bucket compared to what Von Ohain’s could later spend. As he put it: “I had all money I needed”. I feel Germany’s turbojet was over hyped (Nazis mastered propaganda well), and obviously Whittle was under appreciated, or completely ignored, and even ridiculed. The bottom line is that both “proper” axial, and centrifugal turbojets were not German at all. Germans had a clunky propaganda turbojet that was quite useless.

@drstrangelove4998

3 ай бұрын

⁠@@Dronescapessadly you are wrong on every point you try to make, even though you’ve just watched the General Electric film for goodness sake. Their engines you have just watched owe their very existence to the German axial flow Junkers engines which became the standard jet engine built by every advanced nation to the present day right up to the present day. The Whittle type centrifugal type jet died out very quickly and became obsolete.

@drstrangelove4998

13 күн бұрын

Indeed, we didn’t supply 100/150 high octane fuel, it was supplied by the Americans secretly to us luckily just in time for the Battle of Britain. I say secretly as they were still neutral. This gave the Spitfire a speed a speed matching the 109 luckily.

@drstrangelove4998

13 күн бұрын

@@Dronescapesabsolute romantic nonsense. Capt Eric Brown responsible for evaluation of German jets at RAE Farnborough, has said many times on film that the ME 262 ‘…was without a shadow of doubt, the most formidable fighter of WW2…’ He also flew many other German jets, the He162 Volksjäger he said, ‘would have run rings around the Meteor had it had the misfortune to meet it in combat.’

31:22: Mustang an excellent ground attack plane? Are you sure because due to its lack of a sturdy frame like the Thunderbolt, it suffered great losses in that role from ground fire!!

Thanks!

@Dronescapes

2 ай бұрын

Thank you 🙏

We own it to the Wright brotthers (RIP) honestly.

Little remark: First Whittle''s Jet Engine had radial compressor and turbine and annualar combustion chambers around the engine. Was short but a rather great diameter. Not suitable for installation in a slik nacelle/airframe/wing.

A patent was submitted by Maxime Guillaume in 1921 for a similar invention which was technically unfeasible at the time. Whittle's jet engines were developed some years earlier than those of Germany's Hans von Ohain, who designed the first-to-fly (but never operational) turbojet engine.

@Dronescapes

Ай бұрын

Correct, in essence the first working turbojet was created by Whittle. His engine (and variants) also became the first U.S. turbojet to fly (Bell XP-59), and the first U.S. operation one as well (Lockheed P-80). It also powered the first operational Soviet jet (MiG-15), after Russia ditched all variants of German engines as flawed, dangerous and utterly unreliable, and they ended up cloning Whittle’s engine (RR Nene), after purchasing a handful of units. Interestingly the first German flight was not powered by an axial turbojet, but by none other than a centrifugal one (Whittle’s invention), and today we know that Von Ohain had access to Whittle’s work, as it had been copied and distributed in Universities across Germany in the mid 30s, when the young German engineer started working on his engine. Considering that Whittle had been ostracized, delayed, and unsupported for 6 years, that is a remarkable achievement. His milestone engine was ultimately achieved with very limited private funds, £200,000 in today’s money, practically nothing for such a feat. In Germany Von Ohain had been fully supported and pampered by Heinkel, a very different treatment.

War thunder does a great job of modeling these planes

The secret kept during the war was that the P-51 was led in design by North American’s German-born engineer…Edgar Schmued.

@drstrangelove4998

3 ай бұрын

Indeed

31:16 what are they shooting here? Houses?

I woke up to this at 2:00 am and thought I was having a stroke

an the radial side was the pratt and whitney wasp engine.

For the first aircraft flight propelled, would it be the 14 bis? That near Paris, the 14-bis made a manned powered flight that was the first to be publicly witnessed by a crowd and also filmed. It was also the first powered flight by a non-Wright Brothers airplane.

Were those people 30m from the airline landing strip xD. The good old days, now they make a fuss even if a small bird flies in the landing and takeoff area.

@ab8jeh

4 ай бұрын

Well, maybe the safety of air travel is also a good thing these days.

This whole story is so confusing that I still don't understand what happened!! An officer took command of a modern Russian ship, and there was complete confusion?? And the sailor who saved the day not only wasn't rewarded but kicked out of the navy without a pension?? The entire crew should have defected and delivered it to the west,where they would have been rewarded to the point where they would have never had to work again for the rest of their lives and lived in high style!!

Obviously fotgot the corsair and the hellcat, the corsair was the only U.S. WWII fighter to remain in production after the war

The Fw190 prototype was powered by the BMW 139 .

PERFECT. 💋❤💛💙

The Mustang with the Allison engine would have been a fiasco. I wonder why they never made a test with a P38 with RR Packard engines. Probably it would have been a rocket? If I am wrong then apologies.

@drstrangelove4998

3 ай бұрын

You make a good point.

@jimb9063

2 ай бұрын

I think the P-38 got the superior powered Allisons as it had the room for the extra kit which single engine fighters didn't without screwing up aerodynamics, so they weren't needed. Was similar to the Mosquito performance wise, which had different RR engines to the Packard model for the P-51. The Hornet was just about the top twin piston engine fighter evolution, basically an OP single seat Mosquito, but the war ended before it saw combat.

The P-38 Lightning you mentioned lacked the maneuverability of single engine fighters? That must be why the Germans called it the fork tailed devil and had so many air to air kills it was impressive. Faster and more maneuverable that the bf-109-g6. That’s impressive if ya ask me for a twin engined fighter-bomber.

If two fighters have a slight difference in speed ,wouldn't it depend on how good the fighter pilot was fighting the plane?

Have you done my Dad's ship HMS IMPLACABLE R86

A question for the crowd, were two stroke cycle engines ever investigated as an option?

@miscbits6399

4 ай бұрын

They've been used, but oil consumption is a serious problem in high power engines

The ultimate fighting machine of WW2 was the Me-262

@Dronescapes

4 ай бұрын

The airframe was excellent, but the engine was a complete disaster, so much so that after the war, except for a short-lived attempt made by the Soviets, they eventually switched to the reliable RR/Nene/Whittle British reverse-engineered turbojets for their amazing MiG 15. The Czech Air Force also made some rather useless attempts but eventually switched to the British engines as well... The French also tried to develop them together with Nazi engineers, but that was a no-go either. Nobody cared for those over-engineered, short-lived, fragile German engines. Despite 6 long years of development, massive investments, and many German companies such as BMW, Heinkel, and Junkers, they still barely worked. You can also add to that the fact that they had the lethal tendency to flame out on the pilot. Toward the end of the war, Heinkel and Von Ohain, realizing that they wasted all that time to develop a 'lemon', eventually tried to outright copy Whittle's engine, which had been an inspiration for Von Ohain right from the start, as he had access to the British genius' work all along. Eventually, axial turbojets, as predicted by Whittle long before Von Ohain even started working on his engine, surpassed the centrifugal turbojets, but they were definitively not based on those utterly flawed German engines, as the Brits had been working on both solutions for a long time (and those both worked quite well). It is still a classic example of over-hyped German wonder-weapon, when in reality the Me 262 was utterly useless. A wonderful airframe with a tragic engine made it inconsequential.

@MultiMetaldemon

4 ай бұрын

True but most modern jets are using axial flow engines except turboprops and APU-s are of Whittle's design

@Dronescapes

4 ай бұрын

True, but proper axial turbojets(mid 50s) were anything but German derived. Perhaps you are not aware that Whittle purposely discarded the axial compressor precisely for the reasons that plagued the German engines. He realized that it would take too long to develop an axial turbojet, so he sought an intermidiate solution that was dismissed by his sole examiner, none other than Griffith, the author of a seminal paper on axial,compressors in 1926, almost a decade before Von Ohain started working on his project, fully funded (the opposite of Whittle) by his patron, Mr. Heinkel. You can say that Whittle had the perfect short term solution, but was halted by a person that was working on an axial solution, whereas Von Ohain who had full access to Whittle’s work, and presumably to Griffith’s paper from 1926, simply made the wrong choice. Heinkel and Von Ohain would eventually also try to mimic Whittle’s engine, but it was too little, too late. Companies like Metrovick had been working on (proper) axial solutions all along, in tandem with Whittle’s solution, which had been delayed by bureaucracy, Griffith, lack of funding, and support by at least 5 long years (1929 to 1934). When you look at it objectively, and consider the resources that Germany poured into developing a flawed turbojet, you can easily compare it to David VS. Goliath. Still, a broken, and humiliated Whittle managed to beat the might of Germany’s effort to the finish line, having produced a working turbojet in April 1937 (of course he could not afford an aircraft to test it, as Von Ohain could). Whittle’s engine powered many aircraft, including the first jet aircraft to fly on U.S. soil, the first operational U.S. jet fighter, the first commercial jet, the formidable MiG15, and many others. When it was surpassed, as predicted by Whittle, it was almost 1960, 30 years after he presented his (rejected) projet to the British Air Ministry. He was a true genius, and I cannot say the same about his counterpart(s) who piled up strategic and engineering mistakes.

All the comments about a Merlin not being an inline engine are wrong. ( I thought the same, too.) Turns out an inline aero engine is any engine where the cylinders are in line. There's a lot on the subject, not just wikipedia.

😅😮😅😮well information good show you 😅

Why not mention of the F4U

Good documentary with a lot of valuable information. A few issues: 1. You are unfair to Ford. He certainly had issues, but you do not present them accurately. His resistance to British contracts was before Pearl Harbor. This idea that he only wanted to build 'defensive' arms is nonsense. He was an isolationist. After Pearl Harbor, Ford was all in. I suggest you look at what came out of Willow Run, B-24 Liberators in incredible numbers. And the B-24 is about as offensive as you can get. 2. The P-47 with drop tanks could also fly escort missions to Berlin. 3. The P-51 range issue in the Pacific was solved at a terrible cost by Iwo Jima. P-51 squadrons based there could escort the Superforts to Japan. 4. You should have addressed the issue of the varied performance of the RR and Packard Merlins. 5. The Doira hardly solved the Luftwaffe problem. By this stage of the War, Luftwaffe pilots were entering service with minimal training, in part because the strategic bombing campaign was destroying the synfuel plants and there was no way to train them.

That child at the end was put in the system. That child's life is now over. I too was a child of the system. It almost killed me, several times. Having horrible parents is often safer than being in DCF custody

THAT EXPLAINS WHY

The Concorde would've been the perfect... Air Force 1.

😮😮😮

The commentor refferd to the radial engine wrongly as rotary engine. These are two different types of engine-layouts.

@Dronescapes

3 ай бұрын

There is an answer for that, and it is covered in other comments prior to this one.

Is the voice around 1:52:00 AI generated??

@Dronescapes

3 ай бұрын

Absolutely not. When the video was made even having a synthetic voice of a computer was a luxury, and AI was not even a thing… It seems that we are collectively becoming more, and more obsessed about AI, including the inability to distinguish things. I can only imagine what it will be in a couple of years, when people will doubt and dispute everything they hear and see. Perhaps this will be the true disaster created by AI, more than people losing 100s of millions of jobs. Human confidence will slowly plummet, overwhelmed by constant doubts. Politicians and regulators are also so far behind in curbing it that, when you add the inability of people to distinguish, or to be willing to do a simple research, it can only lead to complete chaos, as AI slowly, but surely, infiltrates our daily life

Why do all the engines sound like the Wright 4-cyl???

The sound effects added to the clips are hideous. The engine noises are reused over and over again, and don’t get me started on the awful walking noise (like at 8:11) that has to be like a free stock sound or something

Who was flying in the end?

@Dronescapes

4 ай бұрын

???

@LichaelMewis

4 ай бұрын

@@Dronescapes sorry thought I was commenting on another video.

Ford got lucky, they let him (his engineers) re-design the merlin for mass production and these increased tolerances led to the power being doubled and eventually trippled when compared the original hand made merlins. Shows what a beast the merlin was. I didn't hear them talk about that on here and that's the biggest fact I remember about the merlin. They asked him to mass produce the engine but the tolerances were too loose

@jamessolak1619

5 ай бұрын

ford(US) had nothing to do with the packard merlin, henry ford refused, packard mass produced the merlin, (engine brought to the parts on an assembly line), every part fit every engine hence much closer tolerances, British-built Merlins were hand built, (parts brought to the engine and file fitted on a bench), tolerances and clearances did not increase power, manifold pressures, water injection, intercoolers etc are what increase performance....... Rolls-Royce adopted many packard innovations and ford(Britain) built some 30,000 Rolls-Royce merlins but henry ford gets no credit for the packard merlin

@martinda7446

5 ай бұрын

🤩🤠💯@@jamessolak1619

@nickhouck4309

4 ай бұрын

@jamessolak1619 Henry Ford with rolls royce redesigned the merlin for mass production. Rolls Royce mass produced the merlin before Packard was involved. The upgrades you listed already existed before Packard took over. They were done in England by rolls royce and hooker and ford and whoever else. By 1939 the Merlin II was flying at more than 2,160hp. This was years before Packard got involved. I was just pointing out Ford because the Ford plants and redesign work in England are not widely known about as you have proved. Look it up. Ford engineers redesigned the engine with tighter tolerance and Rolls Royce and Ford mass produced merlin in England. Then in 1942 Packard took over with even bigger production. This is where people get confused because Henry Ford Refused to build the merlin in the US but his ford plants in England did produce the engine for Rolls. Packard took over US production and actually loosened the tolerances from ford and rolls to make it even easier to be mass produced. So if ford had nothing to do with that engine then where did Packard get the plans from? Ford made those plans under contract for Rolls Royce. Ford built 36,000 merlins and Packard made 58,000. Sounds like mass production and we all know who invented the assembly line so I don't understand why these facts are controversial.

@jamessolak1619

4 ай бұрын

@@nickhouck4309 16 lines without a correct statement, packard entered into an agreement with rolls-royce in 40 september, first engines off the line in 41 august, 5 months before pearl, in 39 nothing was producing 1.3hp per cubic inch but 1 off race engines, the merlin II was at best an 1,100hp engine, Trafford Park's 30+ thousand "ROLLS-ROYCE" engines that your boy henry produced were ALL twin-speed single-stage engines (bomber engines), his last run in 46 was mark 24's at 1,600hp, i know exactly what ford's involvement with the merlin was, i am not confused, the whole world is not confused, stop walking around with your two buckets of bullshit in a fleeing attempt to rewrite history

@nickhouck4309

4 ай бұрын

@jamessolak1619 literally everything I said is true accept Henry himself didn't actually do anything it was his engineers working for rolls in England. Packard had nothing to do with my point wich was how merlin went from 900 to 2,000 horsepower. The first 2 Packard test model merlins were made to celebrate opening in 41 . Packard went into production in 42. checked and double checked and triple checked. And I'm correct. . Packard merlin was not produced until 42 true fact. Yes the license contract (not agreement) that happened before production in 41, that's normally the order of things and yes they made 2 engines in 41 but that is not production another fact. Ford plants were already producing merlin before Packard got the plans. checked that too, another fact. Packard had to loosen the tolerances in order to make mass production easier. Another true fact. sounds like the one lying and confusing words is you. Because if it were me I would of corrected myself. If you can't understand the difference between a test model and a production run then your never going to understand why they couldn't of went into production before pearl or the difference between an agreement and a license contract. there is no point in continuing. Because you probably still don't get it. The only thing I could find wrong with my 16 lines was the Henry part. It was Ford but not Henry. theaviationgeekclub.com/the-story-of-when-ford-uk-refused-to-build-rolls-royce-merlin-engines-because-the-tolerances-rolls-royce-allowed-were-looser-than-ford-was-willing-to-work-with/

The story of Frank Whittle was a sad one... The powers in Britain were very foolish by not properly supporting his skills and enthusiasm properly... His ideas could have saved many lives, if only the British upper levels gave him and his colleagues the proper support to create these amazing engines, sooner and end the war sooner... Others from our adversaries (back then) were enabled to access the enormous work of research and development that 'Power Jets' created, for free, as the British government foolishly enabled their (Power Jets) findings , as 'public knowledge'... Then, when the Germans actually made those ideas actually work , and constructrd several live aircraft, powered by these free ideas, of jet propulsion, gifted to them, by some of the upper levels of the British government, that is when the chumps in the B.G. FINALLY decided to start getting serious about Frank Whittle's work and findings... Only then, was it classified as 'Top Secret' material, YEARS - AFTER the information that Frank Whittle and his colleagues, tried to convince the Foolish British upper levels to keep it a secret... Perfectly Appalling !!! It was General Electric who took Frank Whittle and his Colleagues seriously, and also happened to be a part of the Allied war effort... Hopefully, things have changed in the upper levels of the British Government , concerning intellectual property like this... Unfortunately, several of those traits, that were a SERIOUS problem among the Upper levels of SOME of the British government back then, seem uncomfortably familiar within some of the upper levels in OUR government, here in the U.S. I hope that will change, as well...

Narrator keeps calling V8 and V12 engines, inline engines. This is a major gaffe on par with calling an inline engine, a V style or radial. Otherwise, a good video and informative.

The second guy narration is too quite... His voice even with full volume

I thought the 109 was a Messerschmitt ... ME109, not a BF109

@theanarchonazbolinquisition

3 күн бұрын

They are the same thing

This author's flawed contention that all radial engine aircraft were slower then in line engine aircraft, conveniently overlooks the P-47 Thunderbolt and the Navy's F4U Corsair. The P-47D could fly at 425 mph. the P-51 at 440 mph, the Corsair at 446 mph, the P-47N at 470 mph and the P-47M at 500 mph (hot-rodded) and all at level flight. The main advantage the P-51 had, although it was a bit slower, was that it was a true "dogfighter". Not only that, if you compare the FW-190 and the P-51 in plan, the airfoil outline's are virtual replica's. When they were used for ground support in Korea, the vulnerability of the liquid cooled engine made many of them wish they still had their P-47's.

3 or 4 hours did come to pass.