I've never heard of this design. Even as a fighter pilot for 24 years. Thanks for the informative footage. My sub for your job

The Japanese built a rocket propelled aircraft that had no landing gear. It was the MXY-7 Ohka (cherry blossom) Americans called it, "Baka" (stupid)

Great video. I too, am impressed with the post war experimental aircrafts.

I have this actual photo in my stuff. My dad, and AF Major and fighter pilot, picked it up somewhere.

The US Air Museum in Dayton Ohio, is one of the most spectacular places to see the evolution of significant aircraft designs, like this Goblin ! You need 2-3 days to see all 4 hangars worth of engineering marvels and human resiliency !

While you are saying the same things over and over, you might recognize that if the P-47 had been made of steel rather than 24ST aluminum, it would have weighed 10 tons instead of 7.

First of all,it wasn't made of iron, and secondly, it never ruled the skies.

The Aztec Eagles of the Mexican Air Force also flew U.S.-supplied P-47s as well as P-51s. They were the only Mexican unit to conduct combat operations in World War II.

At 0:22 is that Howard Hughes, second from the left? It certainly looks like him.

Not Hughes Aircraft, Hughes Tool Company - Aircraft Division. Hughes Aircraft never built an airplane or helicopter. All of this was done by HTC-AD.

Stealth 😂

Stupid design, waste of money.

Very COoL. Looks like they opted for the "smaller main rotors" to cut costs Glad they had the Super Computers to help them figure this all out. GR8T video. Cheers from So.Ca.USA 3rd house on the left (please call ahead before stopping by)

So your reporting on a test bed basically, do you have any idea just how many test beds tried around the world there could be!

Hot Rod Chevy

It couldn't maneuver - The servos and swash plate would do their thing and the blades would twist and flex resisting any control input by the pilots. fore and aft flights only. Had a Sikorsky S 55 tail rotor for yaw control

It's a shame nobody does innovation like this anymore except SpaceX and other Elon Musk ventures

I never knew this machine had a hot burner set up

Another Hughes blunder.

Yeah Hughes Culver City. Back in the 70s that stretch of Jefferson west of Centinela had two white lines 1/4 mile apart. Unofficially it was the Culver City Municipal Drag Strip. The good old days.

I worked with a Hughes engineer who had watched some of the testing. Hughes maintained a bean field at the airport for a tax write off. For some reason the helicopter had landed in the field, sank in the mud and struggled vainly trying to lift itself out. He said the noise was almost unbearable.

flew 5 days before i was born

I see where the B57 came from. Stolen from Curtiss by the gov, and given to Martin. Classic. Same thing happened to Melvin Johnson, his invention, the electric rotating barrel cannon. Our gov told him nope, we don't want it. Then gave his plans to GE. And they have made trillions on the minigun family.😂😂😂😂😂

Sikorsky skycrane grew from these ashes like a Phoenix. They are still going.

With slim electric motors i see this tech gain a huge advantage. A large engine nacelle in the middle is choking that beautiful tube. I remember the Custer Wing was a development. I knew of Capproni fighters being 1st rate in WW2, and they had a jet-looking fighter but it used piston engine to turn turbine fans. Definitely did not know about this wild design.

Program probably leads to V22 osprey

I saw a picture of this years ago, and caption was classic--- (Soviet heavy lift helicopter) but i forgot. Mystery Now solved, thank you, excellent ❤❤❤❤

Thank you, this is a unique aircraft, it looks slim, light, fast and agile. Looks Norde, or Dornier ish. Maybe the nose profile i recognize in the P61 Black Widow, and later the U2.

These truly were pioneering times for aviation. What a phenomenal beast that was, those rotor blades were quite remarkable in their size! Thank you for covering this epic test machine. Subscribed.

REMARKABLE 🚁

Best video on this beast by far!

The XP-79 was NEVER intended to ram enemy bombers. This is a myth that has been repeated over and over until it was taken as fact. The truth is, the aircraft was to be equipped with .50 cal machine guns and down aircraft solely by gunfire.

It resembles the Russian Mil V - 12 🚁

I can just see it. "Ramming? Are you nuts?" "Yeh, you can do it. This baby is tough!"

The doo doo doo, the dah dah dah...

The front of the plane reminds me of the A-26 Invader.

Was the inventory reading too much Jules Verne?

Great review, no nonsense

Cool

SUCH A GOOD DOC WHY ISNT HE GETTING ATTENTION

A pretty lame reason for abandoning such a potentially great concept. Helicopters should have been abandoned for similar reasons by this logic. No they repositioned the engines and pilot mass to solve the problem. Enters : Bell, Hughes, Boeing, Piaseki et all.

When you Look carefully, at the NOSE of the Fuselage, you'll see a definitive resemblance the the Nose of a P-38, but Up-scaled to fit a Bomb Aimer/ nose Gunner, and the bigger, mid-section, bomb-bay. Even the Windscreen at the Cockpit was angled-Back far more than a BF-109 Fighter! Martin had a good-handle upon what Worked for Airflow!

By 3:27, I see an OBVIOUS Issue in Prop Rotation, where they have 3 blades spinning one way, one going the Other?! Did they NOT KNOW, of North Americans' Issues with the F-82 Proto, that could do high-speed Taxi Runs, but NOT LIFT OFF, until the props were Reversed? Vortices Matter! And, by then, been, well, not "proven-out" but a 'known issue', if by no-other Reasoning than 'Torque upon Lift-off' and "Prop-Wash" that lead to 'ground loops' under high power settings at Take-off. Fairchild must've been too deep into the C-123 (formerly a Glider, btw) Provider to get the know-how to manage their Props from a Central Engine?/ I dunno, but I'm guessing, non-educated 'engineers', like those I've seen in Machine Tooling companies.

The engines are pretty cool, but the Constellation is a thing of beauty no matter what power plant it has.

None of ya'll have a clue as to HOW jets could br useful on a train like this. Speed isn't the goal.

The jet engine was NEVER intended to be used in regular service but was a short cut/low cost method to achieve high speed with conventional equipment on standard track structure as an experiment to better understand the dynamics of 150+ mph rail speeds.

Inability to reverse was an issue. Could they not have used a diesel engine to reverse or did they want to reverse at 186MPH? Could always put a jet on the other end of the train facing the other direction to achieve that.

2:05 the front of the train looks like ironmans mask.

The dream of an Aircraft being massed produce and used for everyday transportation by the average citizen is an illusion. It will never happen. Why? Because flying an airplane is nothing like driving a car. Adding a third dimension does not increase the equation by 1/3, it multiplies the variables by a factor of 10. Minimum speed, critical center of gravity, spatial disorientation, wind direction, icing, instrument failure, runway length, engine failure, wind shear, critical vehical weight, are just some of the variables that are of little worry to the automobile driver, but can get an aircraft pilot KILLED, along with his/her passengers, (and even people on the ground who had nothing to do with the aircraft). No, the universal flying car is like the pot of gold at the end of a rain-bow, it doesn't exist.

Curtiss never seemed to find its feet again after its continual failure during WWII to create a fighter that could exceed 400mph. I mean, trying to soup-up that old P-40 airframe?