Germany's Ridiculous VTOL Fighter Project: Focke-Achgelis Fa 269

In this video, we take a look at the Focke-Achgelis Fa 269, a German mid-World War II project that, if successful, would have been the first Vertical-Takeoff-And-Landing (VTOL) fighter in existence. We first talk about the several possible reasons this project came about, from wanting a defense fighter to wanting to combine early helicopters and fighter technology. We then talk about the two major manufacturers of helicopters in Germany at the time, in Flettner and Focke-Achgelis, a company started by Heinrich Focke of Focke-Wulf, and why Focke-Achgelis may have been selected for the job.
We then talk about the strange design of the Fa 269, in using two pusher propellers with a singular motor to provide both vertical and horizontal propulsion. We talk about the swift end of the project and how, even if successful, it likely never would have been more than a proof of concept due to the technology of the era. We talk about the quasi-revival of the project in the Dornier Do 29, and how that proved that the concept could work... at least in theory, anyway.

[@TheKurikCale]

The fact that it's not a Blohm & Voss design is surprising.

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

It is too symmetrical 😁

[@Einwetok]

Now they just build weird ships.

[@Blockio1999]

"Hopefully I pronounced that right" - I'm a native German speaker and even I am not 100% sure, how you'd pronounce that thing. You're good lol

[@bigblue6917]

Having the rotor blades so close to the ground like that must have been real popular with the ground crew.

[@anzaca1]

The Osprey doesn't land like a plane, it lands like a heli, so the blades are way higher than any people.

[@Cheese_Authority]

@@anzaca1 we aren't talking about the osprey

[@bigblue6917]

@@anzaca1 I think we may have gotten mixed up here. I was referring to the Focke-Achgelis Fa 269. Why they felt the need to have the rotors on the Focke-Achgelis Fa 269 below the wing like that is hard to understand. If it makes a heavy landing the rotors are going to hit the ground and that is going to cause all sorts of problems.

[@bigblue6917]

@PaxAlotin So what they actually invented was the worlds first hover mower with the usual German overengineering

[@javierpatag3609]

Not to mention the long/tall landing gear being equally popular for this thing’s pilot.

[@Flies2FLL]

Post-WWII VTOL aircraft were a response to the fact that American forces relied HEAVILY on air power. Soviet forces were primarily ground, but they did have bombers and surface to surface missiles that could destroy runways/air fields. Germany had long stretches of the Autobahn that were designed to act as runways during wartime, but even these could be compromised and couldn't handle the heaviest transports and bombers. Thus, aircraft like the British Harrier were developed "Just in case". Nazi VTOL aircraft were intended to be point defence weapons; They would be staged at major industrial locations in order to fly up immediately and engage Allied bombers. The V-22 was a political victory for a Texas manufacturer. It is designed to transport 32 soldiers or 20,000 pounds of gear at 250 knots, about the same as a DeHavilland Canada Dash-8-100, while being able to land like a helicopter. It has turned out to be a frightfully complex nightmare that has killed 62 people in accidents since it was introduced, many because of pilot error, but a significant amount due to technical problems.

[@johnfriend240]

Dad was intercepted by Ryan in San Diego when Lockheed transferred him from Marietta back to Burbank. Worked primarily on VTOL (X-13 Vertijet) plus the Firebee II and some Rogallo Wing designs. San Diego was a great place to grow up in the late 50's early 60's. The prototype X-13 was unfortunately burned up in the San Diego Aerospace Museum fire.

[@stejer211]

My dad was a policeman.

[@captain0080]

I understood the CLAMP reference

[@pseudotasuki]

Haha, you nerd.

[@AnimeSunglasses]

Same here!

[@urbanleech]

thumbs up for the CLAMP reference

[@squishy._.8730]

By far, my favorite military aviation channel on KZbin. Keep up the excellent work, man. I love it! 👍👍

[@ArfurFaulkesHake]

Flettner also invented the Flettner Double Rotor, which consists of two synchonised intersecting rotors. As seen on the K-Max helicopter.

[@BELCAN57]

Kaman's Huskie and Super Huskie came first.

[@MrCenturion13]

​@BELCAN57 : yes.

[@BELCAN57]

@@MrCenturion13 As a matter of fact, I worked in Windsor, CT for a while and Kaman would fly K-Max copters over our parking lot and building. They're a beautiful machine. A real tribute to Charlie Kaman and his genius.

[@cjones070]

@@BELCAN57sorry, but flettner developed the double rotor in 1938, while Kaman didn’t produce a helo until after ww2…

[@specialcorndog9169]

You deserve more subs, absolutely outstanding channel and every video is a banger

[@Tom-Lahaye]

German engineering in WW2 never stops to amaze. Having the rotors placed that way below the center of gravity would have made this thing very unstable when hovering. Like balancing a stick on your finger.

[@himwo.]

I think it could be both of the explanations simultaneously, the Kriegsmarine loved helicopter projects and jumped at anything they could possibly slap on a ship. The Kriegsmarine pilots, although they had to attend Luftwaffe schools, were the only non-Luftwaffe German pilots allowed, as Göring actually understood that it might not make much sense for him to be in charge of planes that are deployed by ships at the other end of the world.

[@davidwatson22]

Are we sure the Germans were not trying to design a lawn mower for airfields ,and not an actual Aircraft. I would have loved to be in the design office when they revealed the design. Imagine the question being asked on what idiot came up with this mad idea.

[@neves5083]

Love the early VTOL designs, specially the tilt-wing ones. Edit 4:05 PLEASE MAKE AN VIDEO ON THESE AUTOGYROS

[@davidjernigan8161]

The DO-29 type aircraft might be more interesting with turboshaft engines instead of piston engines.

[@kevanhubbard9673]

They look about as easy to land as a Space X reusable rocket!

[@jtjames79]

Tail sitters should really make a comeback for exactly that reason. If a computer can land a 20-story building on a boat with a greater than one thrust to weight ratio, then a computer can land a tail sitter.

[@ZappyOh]

It would probably land like a conventional airplane on a runway. Only vertical takeoff, not vertical landing.

[@pseudotasuki]

I'm not so sure about that. They've landed successfully over 250 times in a row.

[@anzaca1]

@@pseudotasuki Yes, and for what gain? They literally get no benefit. The rocket has to carry a lot more fuel to land itself. A way better option would be to land it in the water with parachutes.

[@pseudotasuki]

@@anzaca1 They already tried that on the first two launches. Falcon 9 is too heavy for parachutes, and salt water is corrosive.

[@anzaca1]

To everyone saying that the V22Osprey is a death trap etc, I'd like to give you this: In the 34 years that the V22 Osprey has existed, it has killed 62 people in accidents, so roughly 1.8 people per year. By comparison, the UH-60 Blackhawk has killed roughly 197 people in 45 years of service. That's roughly 4.4 people per year. Also worth bearing in mind that the Osprey carries far more people (max 38 vs the Blackhawk's max of 15), yet has never had a crash that killed everybody, showing how much safer it is, even when it does crash. Do you understand now? The V22 has a fatality rate that is roughly 2.5 times lower than the Blackhawk. So explain to me why the V22 is considered dangerous?

[@kewlwarez]

How many Blackhawks have been in service in those 45 years compared to the number of Ospreys? How many hours of flight per accident? You can't just naively compare the two like this.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

Thrust vectoring was a brilliant idea and came out of France. The French dismissed the idea, and so the British developed it.

[@bigblue6917]

The prototype Harrier, called the Kestrel, crashed during a test flight, which made the French happy because they thought it couldn't be done. They were less happy when the Harrier went into service.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

@bigblue6917 the first was lost after an engine bearing seized. The second, and the one I think you are referring to, was lost after becoming uncontrollable on approach for a conventional landing after losing one on the cold exhaust nozzles. The third was lost due to foreign object in the control jet system. And thenthe design went on to best Mirages in the Falklands War.

[@saltboi6374]

@@neiloflongbeck5705 Because the Mirages were operating at the very edge of their range...

[@CaptHollister]

@@saltboi6374 So, they were bested because of their limitations.

[@binaway]

@@neiloflongbeck5705 It was using an experiments front nozzle made form a new composite material. This was never used again.

[@richjageman3976]

I do not think it was ridiculous and instead think it was an idea before it's time. Look how long of design and development and how much money the Osprey required. And that is with modern electronics and vastly more resources than a desperate Germany had.

[@anzaca1]

No, it's far worse. Because it has to balance on top of the props, rather than hanging under them, making it inherently more unstable. Yeah, the V22 was expensive, but they were creating a brand-new type of plane. Same with the F-35. And it now works very well. If you look at it's safety record, based on the length of service, it's no more dangerous than anything else.

[@richjageman3976]

@@anzaca1 It had a far more rushed design process without all of the modern aids that we have now. Advances in technology made the design of the V22 possible. Yoi say the V22 was a brand new type of plane but fail to see that this was a brand new type of plane without any of the advantages of modern technologies and resources that the V22 enjoyed. Saying much more modern vehicles are safer than WW2 era equipment can be applied to cars as well. Does that mean older cars are worse than ridiculous? “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants” is an old saying.

[@RemusKingOfRome]

Great video, never heard of this one nether. df

[@donttreadonmetal5073]

The Weserflug P.1003 was another VTOL project.

[@rickmartin8626]

Great analysis and, yes, as an anime/manga fan going back to the early 1980s, I got the Clamp reference.

[@bat2293]

Excellent report. The Bell XV-3 truly was the progenitor of the V-22. Perhaps an airplane worthy of it's own episode... hint... hint. Yes, I know it has been done on other channels, however, a deep dive into the difficulty developing the _control algorithms_ required to succesfullly transition from vertical to horizontal flight might be worth your study. (Liked, subscribed, thumbs UP.)

[@seqhorse]

(See 12:27 for your “passing reference”)

[@bat2293]

@@seqhorse Thanks, I missed that. My bad. Comment edited.

[@Sacto1654]

The Do 29 essentially showed the Fa 269 idea was _mostly_ viable, but a real tiltrotor based on the Bell X-3 was vastly safer to start with.

[@binaway]

I've seen a drawing of a pre-WW' British tilt rotor idea. It looked like a Bristol Blenheim with a tilt wing. If I remember correctly it mentioned the lack of a rotor material strong enough to do the job and a powerful piston engines being to heavy. I've never seen another mention of this idea.

[@tombouie]

Cool

[@YouTube_user3333]

I always learn something new from this channel. How many batshit crazy designs did the Germans have? 😂

[@gchampi2]

Yes. 😁 They also had the post-war EWR VJ 101, a supersonic tiltjet...🤯

[@Iron_Blood_Enjoyer1933]

Do you have any plans to cover more Wunderwaffe aircraft in the future? If so, how about the swept wing, ramjet powered interceptor, the Focke-Wulf Ta 283 "Strahlrohrjäger" next?

[@richardscales9560]

I'd have though one engine would have been somewhat under powered for anything other than a tech demonstrator. Flight controls also tricky with stability with the point of thrust being below the CG rather than above.

[@benhooper1956]

Weser Flugzeugbau also tried to make the P.1003 with a different tilt rotor system, and it was explored in Britain with the Baynes Heliplane

[@englishcrab]

yey new vid

[@glike2]

5:45 gets straight to the design considered for experts

[@theworkshopwhisperer.5902]

Does this technically make it the first short takeoff and landing STOL? Proper helicopter rotor blades with controls are much more complicated but if you can just get something to fly slow enough with just regular propellers or jet exhaust you could start landing almost anywhere. Would have been interesting to see this scaled all the way up.

[@apis_aculei]

no more ridiculous than the Bell XV3, very similar concept, but Focke Achgelis was more than 10 years ahead of Bell.

[@patrickstewart3446]

I understood that reference. 😁

[@sambojinbojin-sam6550]

I hope the v2 or v2.8 of some current aircraft designs comes out some time in the future, even as a piece of history, for the public to consider.

[@flysafer0150]

They finally get to it at 5:57.

[@chrismartin3197]

Think the downward swinging rotors were necessitated by the pusher props? Or were they pushers so the props could swing down? If they swung up they could have used a more conventional configuration.

[@davidg3944]

Just a guess, but with the materials tech of the time there may have been pilot safety concerns with the blades sweeping forward and basically inline with the cockpit. If a blade separated while in pusher mode there would still be a chance for a flyer to bail from the damaged aircraft. The other reason could be the rearward sweep gives a debris protection aspect to the blades by default, where a forward sweep would be more likely to kick material up and into the blades and airframe.

[@90lancaster]

+0:05 Thanks for the reminder +IHYLS I forgot I had that Banana I was going to eat.

[@javierpatag3609]

I ❤ weird planes! Said it in this channel’s videos many times. If it’s weird, I automatically like it! … But even I can see the problems (plural) with this design. 😅

[@agnyr]

It's interesting, why they chose push configuration with rotors swinging down (resulting in high landing wheels) instead of pull configuration with rotors swinging up...

[@SP-cn5lq]

Sounds like somebody just convinced a burocrat of his amazing idea in order to not get sent to the front hahahaha

[@stijnVDA1994]

I think the design look could be a more clear line in what year is correct. Knowing the technology gained over the war by germany can make the look of all designs become different as each year passes. I sadly haven't really looked at german designwork in ww2 so i can't say for sure, but you can see that in action looking at the examples you've shown of the harrier with the classic three window front window to the single roundes window.

[@geoffreypiltz271]

Ah - I learnt more than Sweet F.A.

[@MisterRorschach90]

They literally made airplanes that use the magnus effect. Instead of wings they had giant spinning rotors like you see on those ships using the flettner rotor. I think that is just beyond cool.

[@maxmachac9756]

Heyy, something im actually well informed about! I even went so far as to recreate it as close as i could in Flyout.. Could it take off in VTOL? Yes, absolutely. And while being fairly easy to take off , the landing in general would be a nightmare. In the 40s, with the required control setup (with the all of the static control being completely reliant on the tilt rotor) it would be very extremely complicated and questionably reliable. Does it work? .. sure Is it a good design? Lmao.. no.

[@madfluffyfox8739]

Hey, that one crew doing your landing gear was talking shit Pilot: *activate VTOL mode* 3:28

[@wormyboot]

To my knowledge, Flettener is also the inventor of trim tabs on airplanes.

[@androidemulator6952]

1967 Dornier Do 31 VTOL jet also come to mind ( at the Deutches Museum )

[@Ryzard]

I know this is a stupid question, but... Why is there not a jet osprey?

[@pieeater108]

I’m surprised the later 50s version took off successfully, shows at least conceptually it could have worked. Maybe they wouldn’t have been able to do the same in the og 30s version though, who knows.. cool design though

[@pizzagogo6151]

The Do29 was interesting! Didn’t know it existed....FWIW Funny in a video about “ rubbish vtol” you showed a photo of the Bell x-22a, still think that was a genuine missed opportunity with potential. Ducted fans Just seem to make sense, so Influential it still shows up in sci-fi such as in the “ Chinese cartoons”😅

[@juliane__]

Pronounciation is quite good for a non native. On the upper side compared to other yter. In yt tongue: no cringe moment. 4:41 I met Richard Perlia at the age of 89 iirc, who was test pilot of several vertical lift projects. Maybe an interesting person to read about. He published a book about his adventurous life, which name i doesn't have at hand at the moment.

[@kewlwarez]

Not just a CLAMP but an xxxHOLIC reference? Be still my beating heart.

[@piotrstrzelczyk5013]

5:00 ...and the Flettner flap.

[@daytimetundra7757]

Don't forget the French ornithopter,the Riout 102T Alérion

[@johnjephcote7636]

The jet tip Fairey Rotodyne was not a helicopter but a development of the pre-war autogiro. It could have been developed further but for the dead hand of government.

[@choppergirl]

I'd fly it. It's very cute.

[@quentinking4351]

Those Fleitner rotors are just... There's a definition that magic is effect without discernible cause. So yeah, magic. I *think* how they work is their rotation sets up an air vortex around them, and as the wind hits that vortex, it bounces off at roughly right angles at a higher speed. Equal and opposite reaction means it generates thrust in the opposite direction. Or so the court wizard tells me.

[@sjTHEfirst]

I can see the ground crew loving this plane.

[@NormalPersonNotSerialKiller]

The way he say fockewulf makes me laugh ( it s beacause it s sound a lot like F word, for some reasones for me 😅) And also great video, keep going.

[@sjTHEfirst]

I could never understand how engineers could not see how the more complex you make an aircraft in wartime, the more likely one bullet will bring it down.

[@MrOlgrumpy]

Focke is like Porche, Porsha,so Foka,Achgelis I have no idea. As a kid,up the street there was a Czech family we called Wheelbarrow because it was as near phoneticly we got [ no disrespect intended ] Mr Wheelbarrow probably felt the same about some of us.

[@davidjernigan8161]

I doubt that the cannon could have been in the wing root. They would interfere with the drive system.

[@kappawkv2759]

How did they got that job ?

[@robertmiller2173]

The Good old Germans invented the Helicopter and had them operational in WW2. They also had VTOL aircraft before the Harrier, it was a Dornier and flew in the early 70’s.

[@braxtongutschke6346]

Helicopters were invented in France in 1907. A number of nations had functional helicopters in ww2 including the us

[@garyhooper1820]

An expensive Hay Mower lol

[@dmitrychoobise]

Не знал, что турбопарус и вертолет синхроптер делал один и тот же изобретатель Антон Флеттнер

[@Lerch2000]

If I had to give the German VTOL a nickname, knee capper comes to mind, steel-toed boots be damned they ain't going to help you here.

[@sagodin]

Good grief! The voice of a teacher from pre-primary school.

[@Rom3_29]

Why that contraption looks like flying street sweeper.

[@kurtpena5462]

This inverted pendulum definitely would not be capable of hovering. This layout could only do so with digital fly-by-wire. Controlling pitch would have been impossible at low speed. (See - Flying Wing) Hinging a propeller shaft in such a way that it doesn't result in destructive parasitic oscillation would have resulted in a very heavy tilt mechanisms. It probably would have been better to fix the engine to the wing and change the angle of attack. This would have made articulated propeller shafts unnecessary.

[@tomarmstrong1281]

Just think what a world we would live in if all of that initiative, all the resources of funds, skill, and determination were directed at reducing poverty and levelling the economic playing field.

[@joseloco8186]

Oh a spanish Harrier! :D

[@SHDW-nf2ki]

the ospray is such a bad airfact it created a massive spike in US casualities due to all the crashing

[@maxim4538]

I JUST THOUGHT OF WATCHING YOU the hell… telekinesis

[@pickeljarsforhillary102]

Only Germany could develop the worlds largest weedeater.

[@sebastianthomsen2225]

😊👍

[@mokou2526]

People have GOT to be making these german wonder weapons up now these are just too fucking rediculous to be real Edit: watched the video and oh my fucking goodness WHY IS IT REAL

[@gchampi2]

EWR VJ 101. Supersonic TiltJet. Very real, very weird.

[@anelstarcevic696]

You are Drachinifel for aircraft

[@SteveMacSticky]

That Osprey looks moronic

[@richardletaw4068]

With all respect (and I truly mean that), how is the Heinie design any more ridiculous than our ungainly Osprey-a vehicle so unstable that it is regularly grounded for safety issues?

[@maxo.9928]

V280 Valor gang 😎

[@RyeOnHam]

From a stability and control standpoint, this was unworkable. The props pointed down like that were the ONLY means of control in a hover and given the ground effect, it's unlikely this would have flown successfully. The Osprey is not at all ungainly. It was made to a weight and performance standard, not a safety and reliability standard. Several questionable design choices make it a bit of a death trap, but it's a solid aircraft with performance and capabilities unmatched anywhere.

[@mikearmstrong8483]

One very significant difference. The FA269 never proved it could even get into the air. The Osprey, on the other hand, despite some problems, does not spend all of its time grounded as you claim, and the fleet in service have flown many thousands of hours, performing its intended role.

[@RyeOnHam]

@@maxo.9928 I'm intrigued, but let's let it mature some. I liked the compound-helicopter that competed with the V280... can't remember the name.

[@jtjames79]

The Osprey compared to what? I can tell you're just not old enough to remember Chinooks and Blackhawks just falling out of the sky.

[@firstcynic92]

I would have gone with Leiji Matsumoto rather than CLAMP.

[@mtylerw]

@cessna , now hear me out, Flying Lawnmowers!! Million dollar idea!! Call IHYLS for specs.

[@Tconcept]

How is it "ridiculous"?

[@sergeipohkerova7211]

"It's ridiculous! - Allies "Let's copy it anyway, hire the Hun engineers that made the ridiculous thing, and sweep the whole 'but they're unrepentant nazis' thing under the rug." - Also Allies

[@jimknopf705]

Die Deutschen schon wieder ✌️

[@williamscoggin1509]

No human being has ever spoken like that. I can't stand it. 👎🏻

[@wbertie2604]

"the concept really took off" very droll

[@jacopofbargellini4005]

i would take away the word " ridiculous" from the title. Its a lack of respect for a very clever idea. Put clever instead of ridiculous

[@cafhead]

Why fustrated

[@sivalon1]

God help me, I might know why. The Focke-Achgelis Fa 223, the big twin-rotor helicopter the three dudes are standing next to, had the common name "Drache" in service, which is German for "Dragon." So, "fustrated"... Fus Ro Dah... what the Dragonborn learns as the first Shout in Skyrim. And if I got this right, Imma start drinking heavily. My nerdiness is too profound to live with unmedicated.

[@kkteutsch6416]

Germans made it and fly it when allies had nothing to show or fly !

[@eottoe2001]

I get why they lost the war. Yeesh.

[@roo72]

Germans had the knack for totally impractical designs.

[@davidjernigan8161]

The V-22 is an insult to the actual osprey.

[@jacinthorvath1962]

First as usual

[@gertandersen3609]

Clearly so many mistakes in this presentation. He has not read "German Helicopters WWw", by Leo Lindberg 😂

[@jaws848]

This was NEVER going to work....

[@janmale7767]

Not ridiculous at all!! But rather brilliantly innovative,so typical of the Europeans in general and the Germans in particular!

[@annoyingbstard9407]

Yes, in the future all aircraft will look like this…😂

[@mojoden]

Voice ,,,,,,,, yuk!