These AI created story-lines all have the same faults, they can't get number combinations spoken correctly and they all seem to lift images and other material from other real, IE Human, topic creator's works and then collage them into their narrated story-lines. Interesting topics, yes. Original...No. Result: Channel owners of these sites get paid for each view/Like/click/subscribe regardless of how they were created or by whom, and when done by AI, it s effortless and thousand can be created by an AI, generating funds without any real talent or effort by the channel owner...

@badlandskid

Ай бұрын

Blocking this channel

@kennethobrien6537

Ай бұрын

I would legit volunteer my time and voice to fix this fubar excuse of a doc

@ridermak4111

Ай бұрын

Agreed. Garbage. I click right out.

@toomanyhobbies2011

Ай бұрын

I just block them.

@GrimReaper-wz9me

Ай бұрын

Thanks for the heads up. I will block them as well.

Douglas did NOT submit their design to the USAF in 1943 for the obvious reason that the USAF was created in 1947.

@stevetheduck1425

Ай бұрын

United States Army Air Corps, United States Army Air Forces, United States Air Force.

@spacecadet35

Ай бұрын

That's A.I. for you.

@SteamCrane

Ай бұрын

You mean the "USF", whatever that is.

@runner3033

Ай бұрын

@@SteamCrane You-Saf

@thomasneal9291

Ай бұрын

there are so many gross errors of fact in this video they daren't actually call it a "documentary".

Many factual errors.

@gettinghosed

Ай бұрын

The first error wasn't 2 minutes into the story: Both the B24 and B17 had the same engines.

Love Douglas Aircraft But Not This Terrible Narration. What A Shame You Can't Find Humans Who Can Read Anymore. Thank You.

@mabamabam

Ай бұрын

Hey at least they can write properly.

@raymondo162

Ай бұрын

hit the dislike button - it's the ONLY way.............................. ??

@WALTERBROADDUS

Ай бұрын

You are more than free to make your own video.

@laurencek.1580

Ай бұрын

Yeah I won't even subscribe. Will stick with Dark Skies.

@Einwetok

Ай бұрын

@@laurencek.1580 LOL that's setting the bar high!

AI reading. Ugh.

@kd4pba

Ай бұрын

People are lazy.

@raymondo162

Ай бұрын

hit the dislike button - it's the ONLY way.............................. ??

@beenaplumber8379

Ай бұрын

How clever of you to notice.

@edgarwalk5637

26 күн бұрын

Three thous two hoonder 50 miles.

@edgarwalk5637

26 күн бұрын

@@kd4pba Not lazy, greedy.

"...the FOKEY WOLF"...🙄

@kevinblackburn3198

Ай бұрын

It’s hard to find well narrated channels

@herschelmayo2727

Ай бұрын

It was the Funky Wolf. It played loud disco music to annoy allied pilots.

@manuwilson4695

Ай бұрын

@herschelmayo2727 Sorry to disappoint you mate, but Disco came out in the 1970s, not the friggin' 40s! 🙄

@raymondo162

Ай бұрын

hit the dislike button - it's the ONLY way.............................. ??

@gregmead2967

Ай бұрын

@@manuwilson4695 You have a hard time recognizing a sarcastic post, don't you?

In 1943 "Douglas unveiled their innovative aircraft concept to the USAF". Interesting given that the USAF didn't exist until 1947.

@jasonhamre4036

Ай бұрын

at 16:10 a uniformed female is walking in front of a more modern pickup truck with a more modern fiberglass topper.

@kl0wnkiller912

Ай бұрын

The text correctly says: USAAF.

@spyridon3089

4 күн бұрын

Look up the german word Haarspalterei

The horrid AI pronunciation ruined the video.

@mustafasfleas7342

Ай бұрын

Yup! Folkiewolf???

@Yohann67

Ай бұрын

@@mustafasfleas7342 And bomber-deer.

@joncrisler6001

Ай бұрын

And Ox On Hell - at least they got "Maryland" correct.

The American XB 42 was a direct copy of the Dornier Do 335 which had a top speed of 495 mph with an alcohol boost and only 48 were completed before the end of WW2.

The allies did design and build faster bombers. It was called the de Havilland Mosquito.

@longrider42

Ай бұрын

Right in One! And the B26 was no slouch, once they fixed all the problems.

@lqr824

Ай бұрын

The pre-war-designed P-38 had the same payload, same top speed, but far better performance at high altitude. The Mixmaster carried FAR more than the Mosquito, anyway.

@paulbantick8266

Ай бұрын

@@lqr824 Really? I suggest you research just how bad the performance of the P38 dropped to when it carried bombs. How fast, how high and how far a P38 would fly with a bomb-load of 2,000lbs let alone 4,000lbs of the Mosquito? Perhaps you could post evidence that the P38 carried 4,000lbs of bombs? Care to post comparative data for both aircraft?

@warrensmith7397

Ай бұрын

Not only that, but the Mosquito first flew in November 1940 and was capable of 408mph, 4 years earlier than the XB-42 first flight.

@ContentGramophone-tp9gw

Ай бұрын

Mosquito the best bomber period of ww2.... spitfire best fighter of ww2 tempest 11 fastest fighter of ww2 all british, thats why it infuriates because thr british.....

I had a model of P-38 as a kid in the USSR. The manufacturers forgot to include paint in the set, and the only paints I had left were silvery-metallic (left over from Tu-95 I think) and white, from another passenger jet. So it was left unpainted. Of course, I couldn't even dream of XB-42 back then, it was too rare a plane to expect to see it in the hobbyist store, so far from its home. But the P-38 was still the weirdest plane in my collection - a mix of "Shturmovik" , coaxial rotor copter and Formula 1. 😂

@lqr824

Ай бұрын

Peacemaker may have been the weirdest.

@dungbetel

Ай бұрын

@@lqr824 I had the P38 and the Sturmovik. It's what kids did before they invented the mobile phone...

If my landing gear isn't retracting on a test flight, I sure as hell am not going to raise it using the emergency system but I'd go back and land instead.

@obi-ron

Ай бұрын

Hydraulics and electric motors were not as reliable in those days and the systems referred to here were probably referred to as a back up system, not an emergency system. Back up manual systems are still fitted to planes today but, hopefully, don't have to be used as often. Test pilots probably had more concerns about the plane falling out of the sky than if the undercarriage worked flawlessly.

@reubenmorris487

Ай бұрын

That's late 20th and 21st century pilot training. Never heard of "alternate/emergency retract" for landing gear.

@beenaplumber8379

Ай бұрын

I suspect wartime test flights of innovative combat technology were conducted under greater urgency than peacetime test flights of non-combat aircraft.

@nilo70

Ай бұрын

@@beenaplumber8379 I believe you have it .

@airgunny7416

29 күн бұрын

if youuve hit the retract button and it doesnt retract, you dont automatically assume its still locked down,, if youve hit the button, its now "unlocked" fas far as we're concerned and must be cycled fully up and down before it can be safely used to land

Tricycle undercarriage wasn't there to fit the trend of the time, but to keep those props clear of the ground . . .

@gregorydahl

Ай бұрын

The lower rear rudder was there to keep the props from striking the ground .

"B-17 can carry 4,800 pounds of bombs, the B-24 8,000" Sorry, wrong

@kevinblackburn3198

Ай бұрын

On both accounts

@raymondo162

Ай бұрын

hit the dislike button - it's the ONLY way.............................. ??

@PiDsPagePrototypes

Ай бұрын

B-17 max take off weight, minus it's gross weight (which should include fuel and ammo, but might not include crew), gives 11,500 pounds (5,216kg) payload mass. Subtracting the average mass of a person, by the number of crew, might give 4,800 kilos, or a little under 10,600 pounds.

@Species5008

Ай бұрын

@user-xj6rr3yv8q oh tell us all what the correct information is, Your Royal Painintheassness

@beenaplumber8379

Ай бұрын

@@raymondo162 I'll hit your dislike button every time I see you repeat this cut-and-paste comment. Say something original! Or are you a bot that's programmed to post the same thing?

Unfortunately, this is an example of the future. Bits of imagery that are spliced together with an AI voiceover for next to no cost. GI = GO.

@raymondo162

Ай бұрын

hit the dislike button - it's the ONLY way......................... ??

@WALTERBROADDUS

Ай бұрын

So make your own video.

Interesting at 4:05 to see the Douglas engineers at a table with a Douglas DC-8 jetliner display model in the center. The DC-8 first flew on May 30, 1958, at Long Beach, California. Close to 13 years after WWII came to an end.

@s.marcus3669

Ай бұрын

.....and black engineers/draughtsmen in 1944!

@glenatgoogle4393

Ай бұрын

Ditto at 12:04. (I was guessing the plane might be a 707 and the engineers Boeing guys. DC8 and 707 look enough alike that I can't accurately tell the difference. Someone with more knowledge than I have, would have to point out what to look for.)

@WAL_DC-6B

Ай бұрын

@@glenatgoogle4393 I have that exact Douglas factory model except in United Airlines livery (the model in the video has the Douglas DC-8 prototype markings).

@glenatgoogle4393

Ай бұрын

@@WAL_DC-6B - Don't misunderstand, I was not questioning your observation or expertise. Any 4 engine, narrow body, civilian type jet liner of that era, would probably look like a 707 to me. 😃

@WAL_DC-6B

Ай бұрын

@@glenatgoogle4393 Oh, I agree, to many the 707, DC-8 and even the Convair 880 looked similar. I'm just saying that I have that model as seen on the table with all the engineers sitting around it.

A recurring problem with pusher type planes, at least back in those days, was keeping the engines cool.

Three similar planes within a similar time-frame: Dornier Do-335 'Anteater' , the Yokosuka P2Y 'Seieun' , and the Douglas XB-42 'Mixmaster'. One had both engines driving two front props, one had two engines driving a prop at front and back, and one had two engines driving both props at the rear. All three were expected to be replaced by jet-powered versions in due time. Only the Douglas XB-42 was, becoming the Douglas B-43 Jetmaster.

A B-29 has a range of 'threethoustwohoundered'?, BF-109 at 'hun'? and what is a "fookieewolf'? I can't "listininen" to this dialogue.

A similar concept, but not as weird as Germany's Dornier Do 335, which had a prop at both ends, one to push and one to pull.

@georgemacdonell2341

22 күн бұрын

And it was wicked fast.

@rigel1176

14 күн бұрын

@@georgemacdonell2341 775 km/h

The B-29's range was over 5500 miles and its top speed over 350 mph, and its $3 billion program cost did not "limit its viability", if that phrase even means anything. I stopped listening at this point, else I'm confident I'd have heard more false numbers or meaningless statements.

Hmmm a dark skies clone video channel

My mother worked at Douglas in Long Beach Ca. during WWII. She was given a Top Secret clearance to work on "Projects", her words. She was never specific, and said she was never given permission to talk about it.

.there were 4 50 inch 12.5 cal machine guns” 50 inch machine guns? we are in trouble if this is the future of narration.

@raymondo162

Ай бұрын

hit the dislike button - it's the ONLY way....................... ??

@w.reidripley1968

19 күн бұрын

Don't drop that decimal point...

Eeeeh, ya might wanna have a REAL dude that ACTUALLY knows what's up doing the narration. The only people who won't catch that is young'uns who aren't sharp, most who won't care about these topics.

@lqr824

Ай бұрын

even us young doods get confused by "one two hundred feet" and so on...

@Milosz_Ostrow

Ай бұрын

I think this video was narrated by a text-to-speech program that stumbled ridiculously over typos and abbreviations.

@paulbantick8266

Ай бұрын

@@lqr824 Perhaps you are the compiler of this rubbish? Your post Re: the P38 v Mosquito, would lead one to such a suspicion.

No mention of the Dornier Do 335 Pfeil (Arrow)?

@stevetheduck1425

Ай бұрын

Or the Yokosuka Seieun?

@WALTERBROADDUS

Ай бұрын

Why should they mention it? It is not relevant to the aircraft story. And had nothing to do with its development.

@WALTERBROADDUS

Ай бұрын

​@@stevetheduck1425for what purpose? Neither aircraft had anything to do with the design here.

@rigel1176

14 күн бұрын

@@WALTERBROADDUS really ???

@rigel1176

14 күн бұрын

@@WALTERBROADDUS really ???

Bad data. B17 had an max internal bomb load of 8,000 lbs. Not 4,800. With external racks the B17 could carry 16,000 to 18,000 lbs.

@WALTERBROADDUS

Ай бұрын

If they almost never ran with external racks. And they could not reach their max range with those loads. It was slow as hell.

Higher top speed, longer range, and leading edge technology. Wow, that must be why it was so successful.

So, the pusher propeller makes many people think in this comment section, that this is a "copy" of Do 335. In fact, this is a completely different aircraft.

See the guys on the boards? White shirts. Ties. Slipsticks. Those pictures are from the 60;s and 70s.

I worked for the phone company on a contract with McDonnell Douglas aircraft company in Long Beach when they were developing the C-17. I never knew about this aircraft at all until now.

The principle of a pusher propeller was realized in the B-36, and they added 4 turbo jets . Six turning four burning.

Otto Celera 500L and 850 are the proud babies of the XB-42 Mixmaster ! Hope they will have a netter future !

Imagine this plane with swept wings, turbojets and a tailhook. A3D skywarrior

@aristoclesathenaioi4939

Ай бұрын

A tail hook on that design? I doubt if that design could ever operate from an aircraft carrier.

@rogermatheny5512

Ай бұрын

@@aristoclesathenaioi4939 evolved

@aristoclesathenaioi4939

Ай бұрын

@@rogermatheny5512 hmm interesting connection. By the way, the fundamental aerodynamic research of swept wings was done by the Germans and the captured data after the defeat of Germany was used by both the US and USSR which is why the Air Sabre and early MiG jet fighters than appeared in Korean War has based on the same design data

@66Flux

Ай бұрын

They indeed made a turbojet-powered derivative of this aircraft, the XB-43 Jetmaster.

Or. . .They could have just licensed and built de Havilland Mosquitos. Then you have a 400+mph bomber with a great bomb load. It could fly high altitude missions and tree top missions. They also could give "Fokey-Wolfs " a run for their money.

They should have stuck a jet engine on the back of that thing

Imagine if they built it out of wood like the Mosquito, just imagine.

3:25, "...........if the Allies could develop faster bombers.........", well the British did EXACTLY that, it was called the de Havilland DH 98 "Mosquito", it was fast, could carry the same bomb load as a B17 over the same distance, only had two crew, could hit pinpoint targets with extreme accuracy and bugger off faster than the pursuing fighters, it was the bomber that had the lowest loss rate of WW2, in crew and aircraft, you guys should do better 'research'.

@lqr824

Ай бұрын

Nah, the P-38 had the same speed, range, and payload, but could fly far faster at high altitude, and was available years before the Mosquito. The purpose of the eighth Air Force wasn't to drop bombs, it was to establish air superiority over the continent by destroying all Germany's fighters, in preparation for invasion. The Mosquito and P-38 weren't employed for bombing, because bombing wasn't the freaking point.

@paulbantick8266

Ай бұрын

@@lqr824 Really? I suggest you research just how bad the performance of the P38 dropped to when it carried bombs. How fast, how high and how far a P38 would fly with a bomb-load of 2,000lbs let alone 4,000lbs of the Mosquito? Perhaps you could post evidence that the P38 carried 4,000lbs of bombs? Care to post comparative data for both aircraft?

@johnp8131

Ай бұрын

@@paulbantick8266 He can't, probable another blinded by American 'alternate facts'?

This plane was clearly influenced by the really revolutionary german Dornier do-335...!!

Why didn’t they just use the de Havilland Mosquito? It could fly to Berlin almost twice as fast as a B17 and back and carry a 4,000 lb bomb load.

@marsmars9130

Ай бұрын

Wood

@ianwright963

Ай бұрын

@@marsmars9130 And it worked...very well, the Mosquito was also faster than the XB42 and flew in 1941, three years earlier.

@marsmars9130

Ай бұрын

@@ianwright963 Yup, but the air frame did not hold up to time!

@andrewallen9993

Ай бұрын

Because it was made in Britain, Canada and Australia.

@ianwright963

Ай бұрын

@@marsmars9130 Yugoslavia were still fling them in 1962. The Mosquitoes which were converted to TT Mk.35 target tugs after the war, were still flying in 1963, there are 5 still airworthy. How long do you need them to fly for??

Really annoying when there is irrelevant or incorrect film footage used or repeated views. Shows slack editing. Otherwise some interesting footage of the actual aircraft.

@raymondo162

Ай бұрын

hit the dislike button - it's the ONLY way....................... ??

It's a 2 speed supercharger, not "variable speed"'.

@andyharman3022

Ай бұрын

Allison's auxiliary stage supercharger was driven by a variable speed hydraulic coupling.

Imagine if it had managed to get into a bombing run over Germany in WW2, and a Dornier Do 335 Pfeil (Arrow) got on it's tail!

The narrator sounds like an advertisement lol

Modern airlines have been considering going back to propeller driven planes but the slower speed and the noise seems to cancel out the benefits of the lesser fuel consumption. I wonder if this format of aircraft with the counter rotating rear propellers would make for a good compromise given its higher speed, less drag, lower noise, and better fuel efficiency.

Numerous narration and audio errors. Production quality is very poor. Dislike.

Back then, a slide ruler and a B-29, P38, even the Me-262, and many more miraculous machines were made. Today, computers, and the Boeing 737 Max series is created. Is this really progress?

@lqr824

Ай бұрын

737 Max probably has 1000x fewer accidents per flight-hour, as well as far higher payload and longer range and better top speed. Remember in those days like 10% of the planes a year would just crash while not even in combat.

Fifty inch machine guns. What a time to be alive.

@w.reidripley1968

19 күн бұрын

I can hear a "point" before the "-fifty inch."

Why not employ a person who can read a script. This is almost unlistenable.

Tell me you shoplifted ideas and technology from the Dornier 335 without telling me you shoplifted ideas and technology from the Dornier 335.

@w.reidripley1968

19 күн бұрын

Given the engine layout, I'd say you're straining.

Beautiful plane, I build a rubber powered free flight model of it which flies quite well.

It's a funny thing how common it is in WWII aircraft videos to discuss inline engines while showing footage of the assembly of radial engines!

$3B??? What happened to the other Billion bucks we spent on the B-29?

@raymondo162

Ай бұрын

hit the dislike button - it's the ONLY way.............................. ??

Was this video was narrated by a text-to-speech program that stumbled ridiculously over typos and abbreviations? For example, listen at 2:22.

I wonder how a turbo prop would have worked.

@2:23, What was the range of the B-29 again? lMAO.

Allegedly A&A models will be producing a 1/72 injection molded kit of this aircraft soon…. Can’t wait.

Stock footage included scenes around a Boeing 707…. Hahahah!

MAN if Lockheed had built this, what a world we would be living in today!

*HIRE A **_HUMAN_** ANNOUNCER, NOT A BOT!!*

@raymondo162

Ай бұрын

hit the dislike button - it's the ONLY way..................... ??

@GNMi79

14 күн бұрын

A lot of the human narrators on KZread aren't any better at pronouncing foreign names. They don't even try to get them right.

I thought Martin's B-26 had a top end of 409 mph ?

The museum at Wright Patt ia amazing. Well worth a trip. I have been there several times. One time they even had a biplane simulated dogfight over a field right by the museum. They also have a virtual tour on their site. Though nothing matches going yourself. It's still nice.

After reading the comments I'm not doing the video. There was another plane the AAF never asked for and didn't want. The Merlin engined P-51. They fought that off for a couple of years.

When you are flying towards someone... speed isn't so much of an issue as it is when your flying away from them. Ah. Air Cobra

2:24 if you had any doubts about whether this was a robovoice... "three thoustwohoonderfifty miles"

@lqr824

Ай бұрын

the shock is that the numbers are all screwed up. I'd have thought as a software guy, that numbers might be the easiest thing to read right.

More american claptrap. The Mosquito had a top speed of 415MPH for the standard model in 1941 before the USA got involved in the war, and there were some fettled "hot" specials that were faster due to an extra 20% power. There were also some that were made with a better drag co-efficient. Why they didn't (as far as I know) try the fettled engines in the slippy airframes is a mystery to me. I did some calculations and I think they could have hit 435MPH.

Whether this movie is true or not. What is true is that World War II led to many new inventions in many fields. It also accelerated the development of jet-powered aircraft.

Dornier Do 335. Although a fighter and not a bomber, obviously lend something to it.

Imagine this bird with turboprops

Another artificial announcer.

That must have been one noisy bird. The tail basically has the design of a siren.

@3:55 - stating this is 1943 at Douglas Aircraft Co - there is a line of swept-wing bombers which must be B-47s? In 1943? Either those aren't B-47s or it isn't 1943?

Looks commonplace compared to British experimental aircraft of the period.

What the F is a Folkie woolfie

@kumasenlac5504

Ай бұрын

A rottweiler with a tambourine...

@poopytowncat

Ай бұрын

@@kumasenlac5504 -- That's a howl!

@kevinblackburn3198

Ай бұрын

@@kumasenlac5504😂😂😂

@raymondo162

Ай бұрын

hit the dislike button - it's the ONLY way......................... ??

It would have been a great plane to have during the Korean War.

Wow the rear of this thing looks very much like the Do335.

I said US Air Force in 1949 that was a mistake the others are right it's 1947

sounded to me like it said the funky wolf 190

It seems that a rear mounted propeller would be always better than a front mounted propeller. The fuselage and wings would be in smooth air if the propeller is in the back. This is just my completely worthless opionion that requires no regard nor consideration.

"Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster" Didn't he do some stuff with the Beastie Boys in the 80s?

2:23 Artificial _Intelligence_ gets tongue tied.

Just think of this aircraft with RR merlin engines, and De Haviland type Aerodynamic upgrades, NOW that would be a fast medium bomber!

At 2:20, what was that range again?

@kevinblackburn3198

Ай бұрын

Lol😂😂😂

@andycraig7734

Ай бұрын

🌿

Quite similar to the German Dornier DO 335.

I do not know how are you with it, but to me, this airplane resembles the A 10...

it really looks like the HS-P87 made in Germany around 1939

Do335 imitation ? 😊

@mule5267

Ай бұрын

Exactly what I thought, the americans took the surviving ones after the war as well, that is probably where this came from. The Germans were way ahead in technology

@GNMi79

14 күн бұрын

🤔The Do 335 had one engine and prop at the front and one at the rear. This plane had both engines behind the cockpit, and both props at the rear. As far as I can see, the only real similarity between the two is the inclusion of a vertical fin under the fuselage.

"the engine's cool" is that a real term? sounds like a hip jazz airplane

I have read they didn't pursue developing this aircraft due to problems with engine over heating.

what a brilliant design !

The British zde Havilland Mosquito carried 4000 pounds payload over 1300 miles at over 400 mph in 1942. Development would improve. This design seems over complex, not grou d breaking and a solution searching for a problem.

The words "precision bombing" and "USAF WW2" don't really hang well together. Only 16% of USAF bombs fell within 1000ft of the target in WW2.

I’ve seen it. It’s in one of the annex hangars at Wright Patterson AFB.

04:06 - What's a DC-8 doing in this discussion?

Great vídeo 👍🏻. Great Channel 👍🏻 One more subscriber here.

It was a flying gun with 8000 pound bomb with clear plexiglass front to see and shoot the target. Was it built in Hazelwood, Missouri? Looks like one my grandpa would have known. Never seen one at a AFB airshow. Finally Hill AFB is going to do a big airshow which hasn't really been a thing since 2019 and is only every two years in 2020's instead of annual. A hot fiery June day is coming just before the 4th of July.

Who or what narrated this? Pronunciations are so poorly done they are inane.

Like many new warplanes in the mid 1940's they were soon outdated by jets.

Great leaps in designs only possible by American 🇺🇸 industrial courage (risks to capital, reputation...) and war time pressures.

Like the "Super Sabre" and the Russian Mig-15 during the Korean war it´s just another copy of German WW2 planes (Heinkel/Dornier)