Groundbreaking Aircraft of Yesteryear

[@Sibula]

When talking about aircraft the adjective "groundbreaking" wouldn't be my top choice to make something sound good...

[@usernameisusername]

I like your thought process

[@vic5015]

Haha, good one!

[@valiroime]

Agreed

[@PortCharmers]

Like they said about the Pou Du Ciel: "it brought aviation to the man on the street. Mainly by falling on him".

[@MrMuz99]

Good point, but, 'airbreaking' just sounds like a polite way to say you've farted. 😆

[@ignitionfrn2223]

0:50 - Chapter 1 - Dornier do 335 "arrow 4:50 - Chapter 2 - Bartini beriev VVA 14 8:00 - Chapter 3 - Vought XF5U "Flying Pancake" 11:00 - Chapter 4 - Convair XFY "Pogo"

[@Paldasan]

Hey Simon/Editor, you might want to revisit the Pancake section where Simon repeats the craft's derivation, once on screen and then immediately after as a voiceover. Starting ~8:56

[@tanegashima5395]

I also want to add that all of the images are of the V-173 and not of the XF5U

[@sparky6086]

The XF5U was more often referred to as the "Flying Flapjack" to employ alliteration. "Flapjack" being a slang term for pancake.

[@thezate]

The only remaining Flying Pancake is on display at the Love Field museum in Dallas. I was able to see it there; such a strange aircraft

[@guillaumecourtens9594]

I think I’ve seen one displayed at Futuroscope, near Poitiers in France

[@vic5015]

Minda makes me wonder if the B2 stealth bomber design team took any inspiration from the odd shape.

[@ceverett68]

@@vic5015 it did not. one is a flying wing the other is a flying disc

[@jacobb1442]

It's a nice museum

[@t.c.thompson2359]

Grisson AFB has something similar.

[@SeanHollingsworth]

The V-173 is at the Frontiers of Flight Museum at Dallas Love Field. It is still a phenomenal design. It does NOT have a propeller from any other aircraft from that time period. . . Although the more power XF5U was built, they were not even allowed to fly. The dawn of the jet age sealed their fate. They were crushed up, and shredded. Thankfully, some former Vought employees who were involved the V-173/XF5U project beautifully restored the the V-173. This one was also flown by Charles Lindberg. . . Useful video here: Vought V-173 Pancake Walkaround kzbin.info/www/bejne/iYTOh3Zvl6iSg8k

[@dmk0210]

I always wondered why the XF5U was never adapted to jet propulsion. It looks like jets could have integrated into the fuselage quite nicely.

[@MrTmac9k]

@@dmk0210 The reason is that the props were *necessary* to keep the high-pressure air on the bottom of the fuselage, making it behave like an airplane with a much higher aspect ratio without the weight penalty of having longer wings.. Jet engines can't do that. You'd have ended up with a much longer takeoff roll, more drag, and less maneuverability.

[@dmk0210]

@@MrTmac9k Interesting. That makes sense. I remember reading about the Boeing YC-14 STOL aircraft where they experimented with jet exhaust blowing over the wing and directed by the flaps, but that was a more conventional wing and much later, in the 1970s.

[@rayfleming2053]

I saw the XF5U near Plant City Florida. It is worth stopping at the museum if you are in the area especially since it is next to a Navy Sea Dart.

[@Bromopar]

I showed my wife the Pogo and she didn't believe it was an airplane. She insisted it was a rocket and I was on drugs. lol.

[@hvitekristesdod]

Have you ever covered the Avro Arrow?

[@slcpunk2740]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/m56TZ3x_a7iWpKM

[@sportscardprofessor]

Hmmm, no Northrop YB-49 flying wing...I've been waiting on that one.

[@GermanShepherd1983]

Yep, so was I. Too bad politics cancelled that one. Far better plane than the B 36 convair.

[@samsignorelli]

i was kinda hoping he'd include the convair sea dart...my father was an engineer on that project and i'm the surviving member of the restoration team for the one in san diego.

[@kilotun8316]

Man, that flying pancake totally reminded me of the reliable ol' Dralthi....

[@JohnSmith-eo5sp]

8:00 THE FLYING PANCAKE The first sighting of a "flying saucer" hovering over the USA :-0

[@usonumabeach300]

These designs might be a lot more viable with modern computers and sensors

[@chrisyanover1777]

It's too bad the Pancakes didn't work because now I want to see a movie scene where a Navy Aircraft Carrier Captain says " Unleash the Pancakes's on them and let the Pancakes's RAIN HELL ON THEM!"

[@briant7265]

Cry havoc! And let loose the waffles of war!

[@chrisyanover1777]

@@briant7265 Or " Unleash the Pogo's on them! Let the Pogo's release hell on them and strike fear in the enemies eyes when they see Pogo's coming their way!"

[@JoshuaC923]

Pancakes vs Baguettes

[@pirobot668beta]

Aereon 26. All lifting body design, 30 MPH take off and landing, 70 MPH cruising. It was to be the 'pickup truck' of the skies! No actual wings, though some designs had control flaps. One could easily build one from canvas and bamboo poles. The deign was a merger between a flying wing and a dirigible. It was called the 'deltoid pumpkin seed'.

[@scott2100]

international house of that plane

[@GAMakin]

I built a 1/35 scale model of the Do335A Pfeil. It was a beautifully engineered airframe. However, with a main fuel directly behind the pilot, AUX wing tanks and an (optional) additional fuel tank in the bomb bay, it was a flying bomb. This might explain why test pilots were "reluctant" to fly this bird "fully loaded". Expected to see the HORTON 229, GERMAN prototype (WWII) "flying wing" bomber/fighter. Powered by twin JET ENGINES, it has much in-common with a Modern STEALTH FIGHTER (radar profile of an Albatross--the bird), and was built almost entirely of laminated plywood over a composite plywood/steel frame. Well worth a dedicated dissection. Built a 1/32 scale model of that one, also. ✋

[@seanmalloy7249]

The Ho 229 had a radar cross section about 40% that of a Bf 109, so it was not enough stealthier than other fighters of the period for it to be considered a true 'stealth' aircraft. The flying-wing design was actually Horton's response to the 1000x1000x1000 requirement (1000kg of bombs carried 1000km at a speed of 1000kph); jet engines of the period were incredibly thirsty, and the elimination of 'unnecessary' airframe structures like the tail made the design aerodynamically clean enough to have a chance of meeting the design requirements.

[@twstf8905]

8:56 "The XF5-U was derived from an earlier, smaller prototype that the promise of low stall speed, high angles of attack, good visibility, and enough lifting power to carry a heavy weapons load remained there." "The XF5-U was derived from an earlier, smaller prototype and the promise of low stall speed, high angles of attack, good visibility, and enough lifting power to carry a heavy weapons load was very tempting." Oh, Simon. _Only_ you can make redundancy sound appropriate lol almost necessary. 😆👍

[@falsemcnuggethope]

I heard that "The XF5-U was derived from an earlier, smaller prototype that the promise of low stall speed, high angles of attack, good visibility, and enough lifting power to carry a heavy weapons load remained there." In fact, I heard it *twice.*

[@micheal49]

I was waiting for Simon to say "Two thousand, naught, naught, naught, two"

[@twstf8905]

😂

[@waynec3563]

It's interesting to see that most videos like this state the top speed of the Spitfire as that of the Mk V of 1941. The contemporary Spitfire marks to the Do 335 were the IX And XIV. The IX had a top speed of ~410mph. There were three variations - the F (first IX model), the LF (with lower altitude rated engine) and the HF (with higher altitude rated engine). All had Merlins that produced over 1,700hp in their lower gear, and ~1,500-1,600hp in high gear. The LF with higher octane fuel and extra boost could produce ~2,000hp from its Merlin. The XIV had a 2,000hp Griffon of 37L and a top speed about 445mph. Regarding the Pogo's rate of climb of 1,000ft/min, that was not impressive for a propeller aircraft. I think it was supposed to be 10,000ft/min, which is about twice that of the Spitfire IX and XIV, which were among the best climbing propeller aircraft of WW2.

[@austinwagner3231]

8:57 to witness a real life glitch in the Matrix

[@KarinaMilne]

Perfect bedtime viewing

[@davidneel8327]

Heard that the reason that the XF5U was so tough was because of the material used to make it. A sandwich using balsa wood in the core of the sandwich.

[@jollyjohnthepirate3168]

Kelly Johnson the head designer at Lockeed wrote the navy aeronautics board that the vertical fighter design was impossible to be successful. We agree was their response.

[@jessejoyce1295]

Simon, I’m sorry but it’s “do” as in the first two letters of Dornier, not “do” as in “do you know that the luftwaffe designations for planes manufactured by Junkers began with the letters J and u?”

[@mbryson2899]

He He He...

[@maddog2020tt2]

The 335 is the bane of my existence when i doind realistic bombing missions on warthunder

[@amandajones661]

Yes!!!! I need this today!!!

[@rshiell3]

Dude, I have watched literally everything you have done. I listen to your products, while I’m working. Thank you so much!

[@YudiMuchanis]

I'm more used to Brain Blaze, it's kinda weird seeing Simon being so serious 😅

[@justinwright7297]

He has become a lot more relaxed the more he makes brain blaze episodes. Go back 2 years on his 'today I found out', or 'top tenz' channels. I believe it has made all his channels better since brain blaze came around

[@JoshuaC923]

I prefer the serious Simon though

[@deanfrankel4977]

Next time you do WW ll aircraft, you should include the Ta 152. It was the finest fighter of the war, but nobody’s ever heard of it. Hitler liked it so much he allowed Kurt Tank to use his initials in the name. Kurt Tank was an interesting fellow as well. Just a thought.

[@mfdrew5768]

Fuck yeah busting back into aeronautics, love the pancake aesthetically.

[@jphilb]

Highly recommend the Udvar Hazy museum!

[@theboywithathorninhisside.4179]

Ironically the US NAVY Commercially achieved Water trails of a Sea Drone that looks incredibly similar to the Yellow so called Pancake PLANE this week. What are the Odds.

[@crazytrain7114]

Bernoullis principals work equally well in water as they do the air, as air is just another fluid

[@hirsch9634]

@Sideprojects Simon! Ahhh! The pain you cause! When saying German aircraft names: It's NOT "Doh" for Do (Dornier), "Mee" for Me (Messerschmitt), or, well I don't know how you'd say Fw (Focke-Wulf). It's "D" "O" and "M" "E" and "F" "W". So "D" "O" 335, "M" "E" 262, and "F" "W" 190. I'm seriously just trying to save you from the next one that you might get wrong, say, for example the Ju 87... Trust me, you'll thank me later. Thank you for your outstanding content. Keep up the great work! Cheers!

[@seanmalloy7249]

And it's not that simple, either; for example, the "Messerschmitt Me-109" is more correctly the "Messerschmitt Bf-109", being _designed_ by Messerschmitt, but actually _produced_ by Bayerische Flugzeugwerke. Despite 'Bf 109' being its actual designation, however, it was widely referred to as the 'Me 109' by Allied airmen, and even by some German aces. This sort of confusion over designation became common as the war progressed, with the RLM in 1944 determining that new fighter aircraft designations be derived from the aircraft designer, the Focke-Wulf Ta 152 designed by Kurt Tank being one of the more well-known of these designs.

[@michaels.5878]

Your "research team" failed on the story of the Flying Flapjack. You showed pics and video of the V-173 protoype. I don't think i saw a single XF5U.

[@paulmeredith2037]

Hi can you do a video on the stay behind cave of gibraltar A cave system hidden in Gibraltar where six Royal Navy personnel would’ve been buried alive to observe and report back what the Germans were doing in the Mediterranean if Gibraltar had fallen during the war

[@michaelshortland8863]

I am surprised you did not mention the French C.450 Coléoptère??

[@Tone720]

I can actually imagine a jet engined version of the Flying Pancake, and it would look a lot like the 89 Batman movie version of Batwing.

[@heldlightning7118]

Yes

[@vic5015]

That Beriev sounds like an early version of the V-22 Osprey or the Harrier jump jet. Same for the "pogo".

[@kingjames4886]

idk how it never occurred to whoever designed that pogo thing that it might have to slow down and land at some point...

[@dulio12385]

Now we know where that wierd plane in Super 1942 came from.

[@austinwagner3231]

In my head I've always said Do-335 as "Doe" instead of as "Due" like Simon says. Its more of a personal preference thing imo, but what do you guys say?

[@mcmoose64]

It is pronounced Dee oh Messerschmitt = M E Focke-Wulf = F W Junkers = J U Heinkel = H E

[@austinwagner3231]

@@mcmoose64 Oh so you mean just reading out the letters instead of pronouncing the sounds? I guess I may do that as well interchangeably

[@loupiscanis9449]

Dee oh , is how i learned to say it ,

[@0ldFrittenfett]

We Germans said during the operating time of these planes "Doe". And we still say it like that. And for Junkers we say "You", for Messerschmidt "Meh", for Heinkel "Heh" and for Focke-Wulf "Focke-Wulf", contrary to what Mr. McDonald says we say.

[@robertstevens5490]

DOH! like homer

[@walttrotter535]

I really enjoyed this one!

[@vic5015]

Experimental aircraft sound like concept cars, mainly testbed for innovative technologies.

[@wmarkwitherspoon]

I got to see the Pancake at the LTV plant in ArlingtonTX as they were doing a rebuilt/restore for the Smithsonian. Impressive plane.

[@RaymundLM]

Vought proposed a jet conversion for the flapjack Vought Jet Skimmer (1946) Jet-Powered "Flying Flapjack" Concept The "Skimmer" was Vought's attempt to resurrect the "Flying Flapjack" project as an STOL jet fighter. However, the aircraft's radical design was too problematic for the Pentagon, which passed on funding further development.

[@christobalcolon6601]

A flying pancake tastes better than a running taco.

[@lionheartx-ray4135]

A perfect example of Sideproject video.

[@TheNinjaDC]

I feel you don't do the Pancake justice. It was a very revolutionary design for carrier aircraft, and had much multi role potential. It just had the bad luck of being 2-3 years too late. The jet age had arrived.

[@TheEvilCommenter]

Good video 👍

[@danb2234]

Now how could you know that

[@TheEvilCommenter]

@@danb2234 I just looked at which channel uploaded it.

[@danb2234]

@@TheEvilCommenter understandable, have a great day

[@q300SBB]

Love your presentations Simon. Please, the plural of ‘aircraft’ is ‘aircraft’. No ‘s’ is required.

[@twstf8905]

Grammar Nazi Everyone's favorite 👍😂

[@michealmatthews9377]

why did the germans waste there time developing a piston engined fighter when hitler insisted that the fantastically fast me262 had to be a dive bomber..

[@danieljob3184]

When he was a kid, my dad & his friend built a scale model lifting body aircraft. Then had a chat with the local constable after several people reported seeing a flying saucer!

[@bobfg3130]

Interesting!

[@davidbenner2289]

"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo, a.k.a. Walt Kelly

[@MrTmac9k]

The dudes that flew the XFY weren't paid enough.

[@philvanderlaan5942]

David , what you trying to do to me dude don’t you know Friday the thirteenth is on Monday this month?

[@timothyvalvo900]

The sea dart! Do it Simon

[@ferociousgumby]

I would never knowingly get aboard an experimental aircraft.

[@loupiscanis9449]

Thank you .

[@ghostgunner11]

0:17 those are a few of my favorite things.

[@georgewilliams8448]

Very interesting. Thank you for presenting this.

[@ph43drus]

Here in Dallas, Tx we have the V-173 at the Frontiers of Flight Museum on long term loan from the Smithsonian. It is a funky looking thing.

[@SimonTekConley]

Think of most people backing up a car only using their outside mirrors, and then think about it as trying to land a plane.

[@lp-xl9ld]

The Bernini reminded me of a Y wing from STAR WARS

[@niros9667]

Fascinating video, there really was some wild ideas back in the day

[@terryyocumiii9645]

The DO 335 was not a reliable aircraft. As I recall in a book I read the one in the Smithsonian was tested after the war and always seemed to have trouble with the rear engine overheating due to its position at the rear of the airframe.

[@garyleegomez1096]

I believe it was referred as "The Flying Flapjack".

[@noworriesnoproblems6382]

They work nitrogen cooled

[@corrieshepard9620]

The VVA-14 has some hints of Millennium Falcon 🐔🤙

[@scottthewaterwarrior]

You seem to be getting the V-173 Flying Pancake confused with the XF5U Flying Flapjack. The two are very closely related in terms of concept (the flying circular disk) but construction, engines, propellers, cockpit, and probably a lot more were different between the two. Though if the game Secret Weapons Over Normandy is anything to go by, confusing/combining the two is pretty common.

[@absalomdraconis]

"Flying boat" "Take off and land vertically" _WAT?_

[@douglasjaeger1559]

I saw the Flapjack in a Vought Dallas warehouse to be restored by the Retirees Club having been received from the Smithsonian. It was in very poor condition. It was and all fabric covered wooden frame filled with mechanical control cables, pulleys, etc. not unlike a very large RC model aircraft. Incredibly interesting.

[@iteerrex8166]

Landing an aircraft on its 🤬, while you’re on your back, with no sensors. I would’ve paid to watch that. 😂

[@davidneel8327]

Cessna once build a push / pull aircraft. Used by US in Vietnam as forward air controller.

[@jb6027]

Yes, the O2.

[@oxcart4172]

U didn't mention the speed range of the XF-5U-it stalled at 40MPH!

[@roycsinclair]

I believe it was called a "Flying Flapjack" not a "Flying Pancake".

[@SeanHollingsworth]

It has been called both. Vought V-173 Pancake Walkaround kzbin.info/www/bejne/iYTOh3Zvl6iSg8k

[@sandybarnes887]

The Vought V-173 "Flying Pancake" was an American experimental test aircraft built as part of the Vought XF5U "Flying Flapjack program" during World War II. Both the V-173 and the XF5U featured an unorthodox "all-wing" design consisting of flat, somewhat disk-shaped bodies serving as the lifting surface.

[@SeanHollingsworth]

@@sandybarnes887 I want to build one! It would be all carbon fiber but with twin turbo-normalized OI-540's with billet head plates.

[@michelsenay6084]

Quite interesting, but I prefer when you state dimensions and performances using the metric system first. Most of the planet doesn't use the imperial system anymore. Thanks for another well-researched video.

[@gailbrocksom433]

Shows how misguided the rest of the planet is.

[@lukedouglas7435]

The Russian plan looks like a tie fighter from star wars 🤣🤣

[@tenofprime]

of these really only the DO 335 strike me as something that would ever be practical in war (logistical limits really killed it) the rest show what normally see in prototype/experimental or proof of concept aircraft. They are good at showing an idea can work but they still need tons of work to get them into a workable form.

[@atomicskull6405]

Please do a video on the Lockheed AH-56, it was the predecessor of the AH-64 that never made it into full production and which was in many ways a much better aircraft (which is what sealed it's doom, the Air Force lobbied hard against it because they thought it was too good for the Army)

[@sparky6086]

The XF5U was more often referred to as the "Flying Flapjack" to employ alliteration. "Flapjack" being a slang term for pancake.

[@jmeyer3rn]

Alison Engine Indianapolis Indiana. My dad worked there in Alison’s heyday. Hey! Cool!

[@poodlescone9700]

The XF5U should be resurrected with modern materials and technologies. It would be an incredible plane.

[@yt-xo4lb]

Looks like rocket with detachable propeller.

[@bobfg3130]

The VVA should have been in a museum.

[@anonymousrex5207]

I can't imagine being a test pilot and someone asks you constantly to "try this new tech and see if it crashes".

[@travisedmonds4214]

Strange seeing a plane with the US star and a swastika. You'd think that would have painted over it when they did the star.

[@stevenwilliams1915]

There is no "aircrafts"... "aircraft" is both singular and plural...

[@giselematthews7949]

This and my cup of Joe! ☕

[@mikeemaus617]

Actually, it was referred to as "The Flying Flapjack", not Pancake...

[@ethancntower8850]

Why the flying pancake? Why not the manta ray or something cool like that?

[@mangogo44]

Engineers 90% be like: "lets reinvent the wheel and make it square and futuristic-looking"

[@BrycenKauai]

"Management: Lets reinvent the wheel, make it square and futuristic looking" "Engineers: It says here our budget is a chicken, two bags of potatoes, and whatever change we can find in the break room sofa...." There, I fixed it for you

[@annoythedonkey]

Why would they let that crazy boat plane go to the scrap yard it’s so weird it belongs in a museum

[@definitelydelish]

No HORTEN HO 229 ?? Or did I miss that video somewhere else in one of your many cool channels..

[@godamid4889]

Fling wing vs lifting body... The pancake looks like the stealth bombers ancestor.

[@usel1500]

There's a weird dialogue repetition during the flying pancake segment.

[@AslamGreyFox]

The POGO.... Lmfao and that's what space X do now with its rockets, via remote control... We come a long way baby

[@newbiepee7273]

a civic is like 1.5 to 1.8 L ...a 3 cyc metro is like a litre 44 is insane. displacement isnt everything but most time yeah it is.

[@owenshebbeare2999]

Your post seems irrelevant in a thread about aircraft.

[@stew3577]

not once did you show the XF5U, that aircraft is the V-173

[@ronniefnd]

Every time I hear armaments I hear "consult the book of armaments " from Monty Python

[@ProtonFilms_Mark]

They could have called it a Manta Ray, but no. It's a pancake now.

[@elWhiteNinja1]

interesting that future jetliners look alot like the flying pancake.

[@demizer1968]

The pancake F5U was an aircraft that didn’t get its due

[@jackhawthorn4799]

The horton 229 should have been in here.....