F.A.Q Section Q: Do you take aircraft requests? A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:) Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others? A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both. Q: Will you include video footage in your videos, or just photos? A: Video footage is very expensive to licence, if I can find footage in the public domain I will try to use it, but a lot of it is hoarded by licencing studies (British Pathe, Periscope films etc). In the future I may be able to afford clips :) Q: Why do you sometimes feature images/screenshots from flight simulators? A: Sometimes there are not a lot of photos available for certain aircraft, so I substitute this with digital images that are as accurate as possible.

@Wannes_

9 ай бұрын

26:52 you're forgetting the 100-400 US Gal series of external Aero fuel tanks, also designed by Douglas, and their D-704 A/A42R-1 "Buddy" Refueling Pod ... these served for decades in the military

@ajayKumarajayKumar-hr7sj

9 ай бұрын

Rex, I had a question. I had recently seen a documentary on the Boeing 737 max crashes. It said that the a big reason for crashes was the disjointed communication between the commercial and the engineering departments and more focus on pleasing the shareholders, a problem, the documentary said carried on from McDonnell douglas. So, was this 1966 chaos, a start of all these problems as well? I would like to see the McDonnell Douglas story as well.

@gjforeman

9 ай бұрын

As a former MDC employee, I greatly enjoyed this episode. Great work. Have you considered doing a review of the Grumman aircraft? Though most folks would think of the F-14's, etc, having served in the USCG, and spent many hours crewing on the HU-16E Albatross seaplanes as radio operator or navigator, I'd love to see more on the "Grumman Iron Works", as we used to call them. Loud, slow, and built like a brick bunker, the HU-16's served with other services. Most of our "Goats" in the USCG were in fact former Air Force and Navy aircraft. Thanks.

@Cynsham

9 ай бұрын

​@@ajayKumarajayKumar-hr7sj McDonnell Douglas had great success through the 70s and 80s up until about 1990 but then there were a lot of cascading factors that ended up with them merging with Boeing. They developed the F-15, F-18, DC-10, MD-80 and -90 and those all sold well, but the introduction of ETOPS regulations in the 80's relegated the DC-10 to increasingly becoming a thing of the past, limited commercial success of the MD-11 meant to replace the DC-10, and their concept for a double decker airliner called the MD-12 never received any orders because airlines knew that MCD was not in any sort of position to develop such a large aircraft. The cold war ended somewhat abruptly, leading to the drastic reduction in the procurement of military aircraft, along with losing out on 2 major potential contracts and severely hurt the company. In just over 2 years from 90-92 they had lost or laid off 30% of their employees and in 97 they finally had a massive stock swap with Boeing and Boeing was the company that survived in name.

@ajayKumarajayKumar-hr7sj

9 ай бұрын

@@Cynsham Ok, thanks for telling. I will look it more in my spare time.

"One should never grow old where one was once great." - Donald W. Douglas (1892 - 1981)

Very interesting and thorough ongoing history of the Douglas Aircraft Company. I had an experience in 1966 that may shed some light on the DC-8 segment. That year, I took my first-ever flight on an airliner at age 22, which happened to be a Boeing 707, flying from Buffalo to Los Angeles non-stop. Even bought a new suit for the occasion, as everyone dressed up for flights in those long-ago days. As luck would have it, I had a window seat (thoroughly enjoying passage above the Grand Canyon) and struck up a conversation with my seatmate to the left, who turned out to be a Boeing engineer. As our discussion went on, I asked him why the visibly apparent similarities between the older 707 design and the Douglas DC-8 and the Convair 880. They appeared to me to be virtual clones of the 707. He laughed, then explained that Boeing was required by the government to share their drawings and specifications for the 707 to its other competitors because its development and production contract included much work on the KC-135 tanker variant. Thus was Douglas and Convair able to get their DC-8 and Convair 880 clones into the air with much foreshortened development time. If you put all three in a row, only an aircraft maven could tell them apart by small physical details, such as the nose vents on the DC-8 and the lack of the foreward-reaching antenna on the verticle stabilizer so distinctive on the 707 but missing on the DC-8 and 880. Otherwise, they are like three peas in a pod. I have never seen the Boeing engineer's explanation written up or presented by video, but have no reason to not believe it's perfectly true. RICHARD M. VOLKMER

The hard work and dedication that goes into the videos is very much appreciated by the viewers. Thank you!

Rex, as a 55+ year old Aerospace Engineer and Historian myself, your research, presentation, and storytelling are simply amazing!!

This series is fantastic! I definitely love your work! Some other suggestions - A History of SAAB, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin would be fine additions to your channel. Keep up the good work!

@BadByte

9 ай бұрын

Agreed SAAB would be interesting

@washingtonradio

9 ай бұрын

Fokker would be interesting.

@dennisartstudio1389

9 ай бұрын

​​@@washingtonradioBanger of a suggestion! I am all for this! Junkers, Messerschmitt and Heinkel could be promising as well. Or something obscure like the Italian aircraft companies of WW2 or the French companies of WW2.

@taivaankumma

9 ай бұрын

Here's a vote for SAAB as well, but frankly I'd love to see almost any company covered like this.

@aritakalo8011

9 ай бұрын

@@BadByte That will be crazy ride with them having at one point made (or owning a maker of) everything from air planes (both civilian and military), cars, missiles, radars, guns (as in heavy artillery), ships, submarines, torpedoes, rocket launchers, recoilless rifles. And then whole host of smaller stuff and amount of "sweden needs this, SAAB go make do this doo hickey thingea for us." and auxiliary stuff to go along with those main products. Sweden is bit crazy with essentially 3 main defence conglomerates by now after all of the mergers consolidations and re-groupings. SAAB group (the conglomeratest of them all), BAE Systems Bofors (you need big gun, you call bofors), BAE Systems Häglunds (you need land vehicles, you call Häglunds). Like at one point SAAB owned all of Bofors also. Though they sold off the "big guns" part retaining the "we make missiles" part.

Spent a lot of time on Eastern and Delta -6s as a kid domestically, made my first Transatlantic trip to London on a Pan Am DC-7C "Seven Seas' . 12 pounding hours to then London Airport, 7 smooth hours back on a brand new B-707. It changed everything. One nitpick: The Boeing Dash 80 was the prototype for what became the KC-135 Tanker. The fuselage was, and is, narrower and shorter than the 707.

@allangibson8494

9 ай бұрын

The military 707 is the C-137… The (original) 717 is the C-135…

I flew the DC-8 for 10 years. LOVED THAT JET! All that was needed was 2 motors, no hydraulics, no electricity, could fly around the world. Great jet.

You know it's a good day when Rex uploads

@alexandergustafsson4245

9 ай бұрын

Indeed ❤

@RexsHangar

9 ай бұрын

These comments are honestly what makes it all worth it :)

@kalcampbell6580

3 ай бұрын

Shut up

Damn. You know, sometimes I put your videos on in the background, not really looking, just to have calm in my head, but this, this series is a true masterpiece.

Fantastic story, with a fantastic individual, at the helm of a grand company. He lived to 88, and spent his retirement doing his other love of life. Who could complain about that.

The Super Connie was in a league of its own when it came to looks. By far the best looking piston airliner ever made. Truly a work of art.

Wow. I found Donald Douglas senior to be a very inspirational figure steady and patient but he knew exactly when it was time to fold em and lived out the rest of his life happily with pride and dignity very inspirational.

My step father worked at the Santa Monica plant starting in 1952 installing instrument panels in C-124’s and retired some twenty years later as a metallurgist involved in Douglas’ space program endeavors. I guess that he got out at about the right time. Times have certainly changed: no more Douglas Aircraft and the Santa Monica of today is somewhat disappointing, even to the extent of closing Clover Field in the next few years. Sad. Thanks for wonderful presentation of the Douglas story.

This epic 3 part story of Douglas aircraft might be your best yet, brilliant! I was waiting for one thing I remember to come up, the stretch DC-8's, I used to see them at Birmingham airport occasionally, definitely not enough of them, though. I think airport announcer used to call them by that name, in the days when they announced the arrival of every single plane! (Not including small private planes).

@gendaminoru3195

9 ай бұрын

He did refer to them as teh Super 60's

Thanks Rex. Great presentation. As a fluid dynamics guy, I am always impressed with the early British jet airliner nose designs. Contrasting them to the American shapes, you can easily see that all current airliners mimic the Brits.

My favorite Douglas aircraft is the DC-6B especially in Western Airlines (WAL) livery. Great continuation of the history of Douglas Aircraft Co. and thanks for sharing!

Hey Rex, Thank you for your efforts. my wife and I love watching these. I watch them alot during lunch or in the evening after dinner.

@ajayKumarajayKumar-hr7sj

9 ай бұрын

That's lovely, sir. Many of us do the same all of the world.

Incredible work! As a former A-4 Skyhawk maintainer and former McDonnell Douglas employee, this answers a lot of questions that I've been carrying around!

@ajayKumarajayKumar-hr7sj

9 ай бұрын

Sir, I had a question. I had recently seen a documentary on the Boeing 737 max crashes. It said that the a big reason for crashes was the disjointed communication between the commercial and the engineering departments and more focus on pleasing the shareholders, a problem, the documentary said carried on from McDonnell douglas. Can, you please tell a bit more on your experiences, as I would like to listen from you. Also, do you think that the 1966 chaos was anything to do with how the McDonnell Douglas company was?

@SkyhawkSteve

9 ай бұрын

@@ajayKumarajayKumar-hr7sj I was at McDonnell Douglas about 30 years ago, in St. Louis. James McDonnell's nephews were running the company, and didn't seem to have a vision for running the company. Nepotism is usually a bad idea and tends to not produce the best results. It was a very large company, and I have no idea what problems they were having at the Douglas side of the business.

@ajayKumarajayKumar-hr7sj

9 ай бұрын

@@SkyhawkSteve Err. That sounds problematic. By the way, how was your experience?

@SkyhawkSteve

9 ай бұрын

@@ajayKumarajayKumar-hr7sj I was working in military aerospace at McDonnell Douglas, and as Rex's video shows, it is a very volatile industry. Business dried up after the Soviet Union broke up, and I went to another employer. The work at McDonnell Douglas was fun while it lasted, though! Very interesting and challenging.

This movie is a noble and very precious masterpiece .

It is interesting that Douglas and Boeing went straight from Pistons to jets unlike the Bristol and Vickers companies which had Turboprop airliners.

@allangibson8494

9 ай бұрын

And Gloster went from biplanes to jets… The British were the first to fly a turboprop aircraft (a Gloster Meteor) so had a more detailed understanding of those engines. Basically jets preceded turboprops in development - and the USAF wanted speed above all. Turbofans were used instead.

@gendaminoru3195

9 ай бұрын

And Convair!

Nice surprise part 3 popping up today especially with your ‘life issues’ going on. Thanks for this series on Douglas, it was really interesting.

A. Full. Hour. Let’s go!

The thing I like about this series, and indeed this channel, is that it's the right balance of detail and wider pictures; it gives a concise précis of any possible tangents where other KZreadrs may be given to rambling; and everything is presented in a clear, logical way that's intended to be easily understood, when TV documentaries would have long deviated into minutiae and hot takes from various talking heads to drum up drama. No adverts, no faffing about, no filler. Rex has by himself blown these people with far bigger budgets out of the water.

Awesome 3 part series Rex, looking forward to more in the future

My Dad was the leadman in Douglas El Segundo Prototype, dept 592, I think. He work with Ed Heinemann directly on many projects during the late 1940s and all though the 1950s and early 60s. He actually had a big hand in building the D-558-1, D-558-2, the F3D, F4D and F5D Skylancer, only about 4 built also not mentioned, the AD, A2D Skyshark which was not mentioned, only about a dozen built but it looked like an AD with a turboprop and counter rotating props. The prop system had lots of problems. He also built the first A3D SkyWarrior and A4D Skyhawk. Lots of stories, but not here. The story was how do you tell the difference between a DC-6 and DC-7, all used the basic fuselage and wing of the DC-4 with different engines but the big difference between a 6 and a 7 was a DC-6 had four engines with three blade props and a DC-7 had 3 (operative) engines and 4 blade props. That's because not so much because the R-3350, but DC-7 had turbo compound engines each engine having three Power recovery turbines (PRT) (driven by exhaust gases) which was connected back through the crankshaft. Very complicated. Later Super Connies, 1049C and G and 1649 had the same issues with turbo compound R3350.

@glenwoodriverresidentsgrou136

9 ай бұрын

Nice insight.

Another fantastic series! Your documentaries are really broadcast quality - perhaps even better, content wise. On top of that, your presentation style is entertaining and occasionally funny without distracting from the material. Great job!

My first flight on a plane was on a Douglas DC8 in 1963 from London to Toronto. I was 6 years old. Dont remember much about it but that's why I watched this. Many thanks.

These 3 episodes have been fantastic! Thank you for what you do well.

These three episodes are outstanding. Excellent!

Congratulations for a well researched and fully explanatory series of the Douglas company. Keep up the excellent work with other histories of iconic companies and aircraft. We cannot have enough of them.

Very...very...well done. Thank you for all your efforts with this series. It did not disappoint. I really hope you can do more of these "History Of" with other titans of aviation...though they must take a personal toll on you, you've done a magnificent job!

Excellent presentation 👏..I never got to fly on a DC-8 but throughout my childhood was fortunate to have many memories on board the DC-9 and occasionally the DC-10 ..the last flight on a DC-9 for me was on northwest airlines in 2006..what a workhorse of an aircraft! and very well built as many remain in service beyond the 40 year mark

This was an amazing series, loved it and hope you do more when you get the chance!

Thanks a lot for uploading part 3 of the Douglas history series, Rex! As always, I really enjoyed the video and the series so much.^^

Every single product made by Douglas is a work of art

@randomnickify

Ай бұрын

Well, ugly works of art exist. Some of their planes would make Picasso blush :P

@ancientmonotheism5118

Ай бұрын

@@randomnickify well, ambitious is rarely perfect

Loved seeing this, what a journey! And no apologies needed for the videos being spread out, they were LONG.

A great series about Douglas. Thank you, Rex.

Thoroughly enjoyed this series - thanks Rex

This is the best series, thank you.

Rex has surpassed himself , this was Excellent ..great footage , research ..This is what you sign up for , the Constellation looked like the lower half of a Womans leg and the Boeing 707 was a great looking battery operated Toy I had in the 60's an I luv'd it ..They still rule for me..

Simply fantastic!

Excellent series, loved every minute of each part.

Thank you for you very informative and entertaining content. Your delivery of the material is superb. Showing interest but not being unnecessarily overly emotive. Great professional work

That was.conclusion to the series worth the wait. Congratulations!

You did a very good job with the three-part series on Douglas. I will keep you in my prayers for health

This was a truly heartwarming and beautiful insight into the world of Douglas Aircraft. Congratulations!❤

32:59 well I think in a case of the Douglas DC-7 finding itself beaten into service by the British Empire's Bristol Britannia, the DC-7 would be in trouble

Thanks for this wonderful and well-researched history.

Wow. What a fantastic, well researched, and thorough series. Bring us more. I would love to see a video about Ed Hieneman and similar videos on all the major manufactures. It’s a target rich environment!

Ni los documentales de history discovery channel o nat geo se comparan a la calidad y dedicacion de tus videos, soy modelador, el primer avion que hice fue el douglas dc-4 de la revista el mundo de la aviacion gracias por dedicarle tu tiempo a esa compañia GRACIAS, excelente trio de videos, saludos desde El Salvador

I have found my new binge-watch channel! Love your coverage of the inter-war aircraft, especially.

Fascinating. Excellent coverage of a huge topic from start to finish. Thanks.

This was a well-researched and presented story. Nice work.

Absolutely loved it. Appreciate all the hard work that goes into all your videos.

A great finale to a excellent series! Thank you Rex!

Stunning in breadth and information

Rex, Drachinifel liked and found your video on USA drones enjoyable. Great Job!

@roykliffen9674

9 ай бұрын

Not surprised; Drachinifel always seemed a man of exquisite taste.

@marckyle5895

9 ай бұрын

@@roykliffen9674 I've been watching him for six months.

@ajayKumarajayKumar-hr7sj

9 ай бұрын

@@roykliffen9674 Who is Drachinifel?

@roykliffen9674

9 ай бұрын

@@ajayKumarajayKumar-hr7sj The Channel Drachinifel runs specialises in historic war ships, mostly from the age of steam with the occasional foreigh into sailing ships. www.youtube.com/@Drachinifel

@SuperchargedSupercharged

9 ай бұрын

That is the channel name of a youtube historian the covers all things in the Sea.@@ajayKumarajayKumar-hr7sj

Thank you --- Lot's of good information in this. My uncle was an aircraft mechanic for United (circa 1960s) and spoke very highly about the manufacturing integrity of Douglas aircraft, specifically, the DC8. As for military, the A4 Skyhawk was superb.

Today is a good day

Outstanding! Looking forward to more like this.

Very fascinating and extremely well organized series. Kudos :)

Wonderful, many thanks

Brilliant three part offering! Thank you for your hard work.

Great series Rex, really enjoyed it, can't wait to see which company you will tackle next.

Huge amount of diligent research is apparent here. Good on you, Rex!

As I mentioned before, I consider these documentaries an amazing job. Well documented and organized. Congratulations

Rex, you blew me away with this series! There’s a lot of good business development and drama to mine. On both sides of the ocean, even.

Great job covering the Douglas story!!!

I just finished all three videos. Thank you I really appreciate your hard work.

Great Job Rex‼️

Outstanding job Rex

What an incredible amount of work Chris. Well done! It's a really enjoyable series. Love your use of the word recalcitrant.

Another fantastic production from you. Please keep it up!

Well presented history lesson. Thanks Rex!

Great production, thank you.

Many thanks for a fascinating and well researched series on Douglas aircraft. Thoroughly enjoyed all 3 of this series. Please do more on other corporations

Great video series. Thanks

Time 21:26 '1943' misspoken for an intended '1953' Mach 2 flight I presume?

@ajayKumarajayKumar-hr7sj

9 ай бұрын

Indeed

Great saga! Thank you.

Excellent.

Excellent video. Thanks.

Fantastic Documentary Set

Top notch series. Thanks for the effort. Awesome!

I enjoyed this series.

Excellent job Rex,thank you❤👍

Excellent work! My accolades. Thank you very much! 🙂

A great story Rex, thank you, cheers Gerard

Loved this series. Thank you. ☺️

What a top notch documentary! 👍👍

Outstanding history.

Bravo for a fine documentary!

I know this requires a lot of effort, but I realy hope you will make similar documentaries about other aircraft manufacturers in the future. I have searched/waited for years for something like that. 😅 You are doung a fantastic job.

Thank you 🎉

It was my understanding that because of the troublesome Duplex Cyclone, the Lockheed Constellation was called "the most reliable three-engined aircraft".

Another great video

Great series Rex.

Perfect work!!!

Great video..well appreciated....very interesting

Living near a major airport, I could always tell when a DC-8 was approaching. Those turbojets screamed like banshees.