McDonnell's First Aircraft Went Down In Flames: McDonnell XP-67 Moonbat

[@SvenJT]

The aircraft was saddled with that experimental motor. The team requested Merlin engines to help work out the cooling issues and were stonewalled. The Army did little to help the progress of this design.

[@weldonwin]

That seems to be a recurring theme, of innovative and potentially excellent aircraft designs, hamstrung by not having the engine they were supposed to have

[@cirian75]

Just wish they'd been allowed Packard Merlins

[@cirian75]

@@weldonwin some generals post WW2 retirement job

[@michaelold6695]

While I agree it would have Ben nice to have used reliable engines, the dilemma becomes do you rob your existing aircraft production on necessary engines for an unknown design, or try to get a new engine design tested which could potentially perform better than existing engines

[@bigblue6917]

@@michaelold6695 The thing to remember is that the Merlin was already being used in other areas. As well as many fighters along with two and four engined aircraft there were MTBs and MGBs which used Merlin's as a powerplant. And it was being used in a flat rate form as the Rolls Royce Meteor to power tanks such as the Cromwell and later the Centurion. So if the XP-67 needed Merlin's they were available. It make you wonder if there was some other reason for using the Continental engine.

[@GARDENER42]

I've always thought the XP-67 would've been a good platform for early jet engines.

[@vascoribeiro69]

Compare it with the Phantom. Very similar in layout

[@wbertie2604]

It's like it was trying quite hard to be a slightly smaller Canberra.

[@allangibson8494]

An American Meteor…

[@GARDENER42]

@@allangibson8494 Only with axial rather than centrifugal engines.

[@allangibson8494]

@@GARDENER42 The Meteor did fly with axial flow engines but they were simply unacceptably unreliable (Metrovic F.2 Beryl in 1943). The Meteor ran through five engine designs during WW2 (DeHavilland Halford H1, Rolls Royce Welland, Rolls Royce Derwent, Metrovic F.2 and Rolls Royce Trent).

[@Fury9er]

This was so ahead of its time. The smooth blending makes it feel so fast. It looks more modern than a Bronco! Stick some 5 blade turboprops on that and it could almost have been designed last week. McDonnel Douglas are the ABBA of aero design - timeless classics!

[@dmillhoff]

Give it a clean, F-16-like canopy, and snazz-up that tail a little... May have also had a stealthy radar cross-section.

[@michaelold6695]

Macdonald aircraft names were typically supernatural, phantom, banshee, voodoo and demon. I am guessing moonbat is probably leaning in to that aspect more than just bat.

[@alanpennie]

It's such a silly name it makes me sad it didn't go into production.

[@freeflight4ever]

It's McDonnell...he never sold hamburgers😜

[@MartinSparks-ef9gr]

It was a nightfighter ....hence the name .

[@dmillhoff]

@@MartinSparks-ef9gr Not according to the video.

[@MartinSparks-ef9gr]

@@dmillhoff so , is it a steath aircraft or is it pained black as it's a night fighter prototype ? Moonbat was to be a nightfighter .

[@robertcieslak1861]

This was a very informative video. Thank you, my friend. The Moonbat was a little before my time. I started working at McDonnell Aircraft in 1957 In the Lofting Department developing the F3H Demon and F-101B 2-place Voodoo. The F-101B want on and provided fantastic service. But we lost a few test pilots in the F3H program since the airplane was underpowered and unreliable. I saw one make a fatal landing in a golf course in my neighborhood. The Navy scrubbed the project, and all the airplanes (without engines) were towed from McDonnell Aircraft down Natural Bridge Road to the St. Louis riverfront. They were put on barges and sent to the U.S. Navy to be used in schools to train aircraft mechanics.

[@JohnnyWishbone85]

Thank you for sharing!

[@stuarthannay3370]

I was unaware of this rare bird, but what a stunner! What a shame the engines let it down. Many thanks for an interesting video.

[@kyleolson8977]

I could get you a lot of unhappy sources around Seattle who would tell you Boeing's inability to stick a door on a plane starts with McDonnell-Douglas, humorously enough.

[@RePeteAndMe]

"Boeing's inability to stick a door on a plane starts with McDonnell-Douglas" Apparently you are what you eat applies

[@benjaminmiddaugh2729]

Whoever decided that buying a failing company and putting their executives in charge of your successful one was a good idea deserves whatever failure they have coming to them. Edit: The corporate world would look a lot different (and probably better) if the people with money got over whatever is keeping them from keeping the people who run their companies into the ground and the people whose companies are obviously more hype than substance away from opportunities to squander huge amounts of money. Sadly, this seems to be impossible for far too many of those who decide who to give money to.

[@williambrasky3891]

The truth you speak

[@Scott11078]

Yeah I'm close enough to Seattle to have had a shit ton of friends and acquaintances in just about every department of Boeing. And yeah it seems like that merger was the biggest mistake they made. It ended up being a cancer or atleast a really nasty std you can never get rid of and it's outbreaks are horrible.

[@slowpoke3102]

Is revisionism that much worshiped today over practical engineering? Douglas throughout the years has saved many of these so called big boys arsses from ruined projects like the F-117, original stealth bomber, C-5a, not to mention is was the master contractor for the moon landings. (big boss) no one was better. Douglas had a long history of bailing the big boys out of a jam with their good engineering. Boeing has had a very long history of problems with several of its aircraft (737 & 47), but has covered the long long load up with revisionism. This design was good, the big problem was the Army Air Corp stuffing it with experimental engines, not any design problem with the aircraft. Lockmart had super oodles of problems with its F-104 (killed near 250 pilots cuz of design problems (oodles)) Appears that the two cry babies want to blame someone for their own design errors and assemble and maintenance flaws. PS these other companies build great aircraft but please stop lying about Douglas who's demise has given them a wealth of tech data they want to lie and claim as their own. Who invented Lockmarts holy space capsules? Lockmart? Elon Mars candy bars? where did space x get its name and tech from? Martians. If revisionism hasn't swollowed up the whole truth by now do some research and not bind beliefs. After bulding several series of capsules including the ones for the moon mission, suddenly with the merger of Boink they have gobs of problems? This is Douglas flaws? Ptooey Like Drumpf non stop lies.

[@glennpettersson9002]

The hyper engine concept could have been thoroughly bench tested and the aircraft tested with an engine worthy of the frame. The team working on it must have been so frustrated.

[@TheLtVoss]

Yep it is absolutely a missed oppotunity too gain solid data on the desing Features at that point the war was won at leat in Europa and 2 Standard engines arnt much even for the bottelneck that is engine Produktion and if the plane dosnt crash or gets huge amounts of hours the engines cann be used afterwards and still ne tested with more refined hyper engines I get that the us didn't really need a bomber interceptor at that point in time but the bad relation too the Udssr and the following cold war was already on the horizon sooo wasted potential

[@rocksnot952]

The blended fuselage looks a lot like a B-1 Lancer or SR-71 FYI, jet engines don't require external cooling. It all comes from intake air that is distributed through the engine. Only 25% of intake air is used for combustion. The nozzles get hot, but they can be located outside the nacelle.

[@user-dm1jw1gy5q]

Laminar flow

[@michaelogden5958]

If looks could kill (in the military sense), the Moonbat should have been an absolute slayer.

[@foreverpinkf.7603]

A real beauty, looking like something out of a 50s science fiction film.

[@josephstabile9154]

By '44, a 440 mph Mustang, able to tackle the Lutwaffe, and fly to Berlin and back, was so much cheaper than a P-47 or P-38, let alone a P-67, that the Moonbat was doomed, even if by some means it had met design specs. Then again, by '44, this whole heavy, twin engine, bomber escort/interceptor/destroyer concept had reached second thought status with the AAF. As the saying goes, timing is everything. Had this design stayed on time in '42, I have little doubt a contract would have been let.

[@wbertie2604]

It seems similar to the F7F. But Grumman had the required naval background. There were a few other large escort fighters proposed for escorting to Japan. Instead they just bombed at night.

[@Briselance]

So much cheaper than the P-47 or P-38? Aye. But the P-47 was much more robust, had (if memory serves right) a better payload capacity, and was a beast in CAS. And the P-38 also had a very decent range and was in its element at high altitudes. These two had their own strengths.

[@josephstabile9154]

@@Briselance This is not a criticism of the performance of either the -47 or the -38. Just a stark reminder of how $ is ALWAYS a factor, even in war. As soon as the Mustang proved itself at altitude, and could get to Berlin & back, squadrons of -47s got replaced with -51s. Doolittle & Arnold could buy a whole bunch more of the little Mustang than the more complex T'bolt & Lightning. 1945 costs: P-51 @ ~$51K; P-47 @ ~$83K; P-38 @~100K. From this, one can readily see that, if one needs a couple hundred escort fighters, the choice is pretty obvious.

[@andrewdeardoff8465]

Some say a RR Griffon engine would have been nice. The contra rotating props would have been very exotic also.

[@Peter_Morris]

The first time I saw a picture of the XP-67, I thought it was either concept art for a video game or some kind of April Fool’s. It looked WAY too futuristic to be from WWII. I was so disappointed to read about its failure. It really is too bad. It’s such a beautiful aircraft.

[@cirian75]

Just wish they'd fitted Packard Merlins

[@American_Jeeper]

Probably one of your best vids yet, particularly for not shying away from taking a good nut sack punch to Boeing and their litany of assembly issues. I'd love to see some of these old experimental designs installed with jet engines, just to see if that would solve some of the issues they were having back then. The structural design of the XP-67 was solid, and I think it would have kicked some major ass with a set of General Electric J85 engines.

[@firefox5926]

2:55 and from what i was told as a kid he also had a farm....

[@Tek-eo3li]

An innovative design for the time, wish it worked.

[@billmorris2613]

With over 55 years in aviation as both a mechanic and commercial pilot with 7 years of of it in the US Air Force I think this aircraft, with some tweaking would make a great looking jet.

[@RedXlV]

20:20 As for how you could fit a piston engine and a jet in the same nacelle? The Martin P4M Mercator did exactly that. Granted, it had much larger nacelles than the XP-67 and was a much larger aircraft, but it also had much larger engines. McDonnell was wanting to use Merlins on the 2nd XP-67 prototype, while the P4M used the R-4360 Wasp Major. Similarly, the General Electric J31 that I presume McDonnell would've used (since that's what was available at the time) was smaller than the P4M's Allison J33. I'm not sure how well it would've worked on a fighter, but it wasn't outside the realm of possibility.

[@cabanford]

Stunning plane.

[@whyjnot420]

I always thought the engine designs that implement the exhaust into making a little more speed were pretty neat. Not like they added a ton of power, but enough for it to be worth it.

[@intercommerce]

what about the environment?

[@spannerturnerMWO]

What does the environment have to do with anything mentioned above? Pretty sure, with a world war going on, the environment wasn't even a consideration.

[@whyjnot420]

@@spannerturnerMWO Well lets take that guys question at face value. They would in theory be good for the environment because they allowed for that much additional time in the air, thus reducing the actual need for fuel.

[@StabyMcStabsFace]

​@@intercommerce Yeah, what about it?

[@michaelinsc9724]

"...Boeing is parading around tge corpse of McDonnell Douglas." OUCH!!!!

[@allangibson8494]

McDonnell Douglas is wearing the skin of Boeing. Boeing adopted the management principles of McDonnell Douglas when they took them over.

[@Otterwater]

Absolutely this. Boeing lost on every front of their merger. They had to pay to be usurped by MD.

[@user-hf2bv7cl6u]

In spite of all the problems, it't still one the most beautiful airplanes ever built.

[@classicforreal]

I remember the first two Moonbat videos on this channel😉

[@trentonarney6066]

Never knew about this plane. She is a looker and it's sad the engines let her down.

[@olsonspeed]

Innovative and ambitious, it would have been interesting to see it reach its full potential.

[@Knot_Sean]

I would’ve loved to have see a 4 engined mixed propulsion Moonbat armed with 2x37mm M10 cannons, 4x M2HB Brownings. I know the production of Merlin engines would’ve gone to the P-51’s and other aircraft that needed them. But a small batch of engines given to a pre-production series or maybe even just a small batch of production aircraft could’ve given them light. Also definitely pushing the aircraft well past its designed top speed if it had gone mixed propulsion. Anyone would love to see there fictional view of the second prototype though.

[@brucematthews6417]

Parading the corpse.... You seem to manage one or two of these one liners that busts me up with every video. And yeah, I also wonder what might have been if they had gotten a couple of proven engines to at least give the airframe a fighting chance.

[@anzaca1]

Still wouldn't work. This was a high-altitude bomber interceptor...but the Axis didn't have any bomber fleets by that point.

[@Patrick-pm1sn]

What a shame, such a beautiful bird!

[@sim.frischh9781]

Another interesting plane that was pretty much killed by its power plants.

[@Bacteriophagebs]

As a kid, I had a very large, very thick book about the history of McDonnell, Douglas, and McDonnell-Douglas. The Bat was never called the Moonbat in that book, so I was a little confused by the video title.

[@danielball959]

Heh, you got it almost right at the ened there. In 1997 McDonnel Douglas used Boeing's money to buy Boeing out, replacing Boeing's leadership with MD executives, boeing's policies with MD policies, and beginning the cuts to quality and workmanship from Boeing, down to MD levels. *Hence the unfinished work that resulted in the door flying off, or the choice to make 2/3s of the sensors necessary in the digital stability controls on the new model 737 into expensive options-which killed 500 people in two crashes back to back. The word "Boeing" is the corpse being displayed.

[@tjaartandriesbosua9248]

Thanks IHYLS for the cool video, question, what airplane is in the field you use as a background

[@jaanikaapa6925]

Reminds me a lot of the Bugatti plane.

[@davef.2329]

What is the background pic throughout this vid of a plane off in the weeds with some pod-looking device on the left wing?

[@TimTheInspector]

It’s a Bell Airacuda and that pod is a pusher engine missing its prop.

[@WilliamWallace-l2b]

Looks like the SR-71 had a little inspiration. Good video.

[@BV-fr8bf]

37mm ground cannon HE rounds carry *1 lb* of explosive filler..... Not sure what the 37mm aircraft cannon round filler weight was, but it's gotta have a lot of bang!

[@hunterhess8433]

The M54 High Explosive Tracer shell fired by the M4, and later M10 cannon had an explosive mass of .102 pounds of Composition A explosive filler, equivalent to 0.144 pounds of TNT

[@RePeteAndMe]

"Moonbat" The plane looks round from above and bats fly at night, so it fits.

[@anthonyxuereb792]

Looking at the photos, it appears the Continental engine is inverted and I believed that only the German aircraft engines were inverted, this is a revelation. The engine nacelles, spinner and prop blades look awesome.

[@andrewfleming8103]

Inverting a V engine helps in a single engine aircraft as it allows better pilot view forward and down and makes servicing in the field a little easier. No real advantage in a multi engine aircraft.

[@jpatt1000]

Two things I've wondered.... What if the USAAF had supplied Merlins for it? Would the reliability and performance have gone up? Also, how would its blended wing/fuselage/nacelles worked against radar of the time? Could this have been the first stealthy aircraft compared to other planes of the era?

[@pencilpauli9442]

Solidarity with the Moonbat! ✊🌹🌹✊

[@allandavis8201]

The model 2A was a great looking 👀 aircraft, from the nose to the tail and the wing root sections (up to the nacelles) is so sleek that it would not be out of place today, some really interesting aerodynamic design, and early “stealthy” lines and angles!!!????, maybe unintentional but nonetheless very nice looking 👀 design. The XP67 @ 7:10 looks even better, especially viewed from the nose looking aft, as per the photograph, those aerodynamic lines look 👀 beautiful in my opinion. The design element of the “Exhaust thrust” is very interesting, I don’t know how effective it would be but a very ingenious way of not having exhaust manifolds sticking out from the nacelles inducing drag, it might not have increased speed that much but any reduction is always welcome. The air intake’s do look 👀 a little large in comparison to other aircraft of the era, but compared to some twin engine jet aircraft of today, of a similar size they don’t look too big in terms of overall dimensions in square feet/meters, and I think they give the overall design a futuristic look 👀. How often do changes from the original design affect the Gross weight for the worse?, in my experience it is almost always, and the culprits are usually the military brass who want more bang for their buck but don’t want to consider the effect on weight and performance, personally I think 💭 the armament that the aircraft had was as much firepower as was needed for the role it was designed to do, during the Battle of Britain 🇬🇧 most, if not all of our fighters were under gunned but the RAF and our allied pilots made best use of what they had, it is always something that people say about the.303 MGs, “if the aircraft of the Battle of Britain 🇬🇧 had higher calibre weapons the Battle could have been over far sooner” but they didn’t have them and yet we still held the Nazis off and we didn’t get invaded, sometimes fitting higher hitting weapons is not necessary in my opinion. Thanks for a really great article, very interesting and informative. 😀👍🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇺🇸🇺🇦

[@cesarvidelac]

I think it was a missed opportunity, this should have been the first jet plane, its aerodynamics was better than the P-59, it's a shame they didn't were able to get that composite proposal flying.

[@RedXlV]

Or even just ditch the props entirely in favor of a having relatively streamlined jet nacelles in the wings. I think that might have produced something that would not only outperform the P-59 (a low bar) but also be a strong competitor against the F-80 and the Meteor.

[@unclenogbad1509]

That whole blended fuselage/wing combo would have reduced drag considerably - you can certainly see what they were going for. So, poor engines break a viable concept aircraft - seems like I've heard that somewhere before. Still, pretty impressive for a first model, I must say.

[@planecheck5998]

One can only wonder why the US took the trouble to continue the project as long as it was, since the axis powers didn't possess a strategic bomber threat in the first place.

[@andrewfleming8103]

The US was working on a very long range bomber at the time in case Britain was lost and the Germans were working on their Amerika Bombers so there was a credible threat at the time. It's not like MacDonnell was working on designing anything else that the XP-67 program would interfere with.

[@bryanwheeler1608]

Hindsight is good, but the Germans were working on intercontinental bombers, which although they never really went anywhere, may have been believable enough from espionage reports. If Nazi Germany had been very successful against the USSR, the phantom of strategic bombers taking off from conquered Soviet territory, bringing them close enough to reach the continental USA must have always been in the back of the US Government's minds.

[@henrikruckmann6321]

wars was a big factor making several corps huge

[@davef.2329]

And seemingly will continue to do so.

[@milesromanus7041]

Can you do the Japanese Ki-83? It's a great interceptor that nobody knows about

[@mattheide2775]

Good subject to learn 👍

[@JB-hs5pk]

Title suggestion: "Bat-tism of Fire" ;)

[@f1b0nacc1sequence7]

One might argue that it was McDonnell (as McDonnell-Douglas) and their shotgun marriage to Boeing in the 90s that led to the decline of Boeing, and its subsequent issues....

[@andrewfleming8103]

I've seen this aeroplane before but never this thoroughly covered. Thank you. If any aircraft deserved to succeed, it's the XP-67. Pity about the engines but unless the XP-67 could be repurposed it would have had no role to play in the USAAF. Bomber interceptor not required, too heavy to be a viable fighter maybe a role in photo reconnaissance? Alternative engine choices that occur to me though:- Alison V1770 with turbocharger setup as per the P38 P&W R2800 with turbocharger as per the P47 if the radial could be buried in the wing. Late model Sabre once Napier got the kinks worked out could produce phenomenal horsepower for its size and weight at low and medium altitude..

[@bluetopguitar1104]

A really advanced first try. Typical of the era, engines where a big limiting factor.

[@sabregunner1]

boeings issues are cased by McDonal Douglas having bought them

[@raygiordano1045]

"Hyper Engines," sounds like some term their marketing department came up with.

[@andrewfleming8103]

I think Harry Ricardo first used the term in the 1920s or early 30s referring to an engine capable of producing 1,000hp at the time he was advocating for sleeve valve engines. Refer to Bristol Taurus, Hercules, Centaurus and Napier Sabre.

[@evryhndlestakn]

Heck yes.

[@MartinCHorowitz]

Clearly Batman wanted the design for his own use, sohe scuttled the McDonnel Design....

[@Snagglepuss1952]

I love the look of this aircraft, a very visionary style. Had it been a peace time development it may have faired better however in war, and WW2 in particular cutting edge engines like the Merlin were heavily rationed as far as any airframe getting them as spitfires, hurricanes,Lancasters x4 mosquitoes x2 and even some of the mustangs had them. As for the Dutch roll whether that would have been solvable I don’t know, it is a problem that very slippery designs were prone to. Interestingly non of todays supreme fast aircraft look anything like the Moonbat so maybe the design was a wrong turn in the in the advance ment of aircraft, but a lovely looking craft. The dehavillan comet proved to be a similar case, beautiful but no one puts the engines in the wing anymore.

[@bryanwheeler1608]

The "no more engines in the wings" thing is purely utilitarian with big jets,as changing an engine in a pod is a lot faster. The Brits stuck with it for ages, as witness the Vulcan & Nimrod.

[@waynesworldofsci-tech]

Wow. What a neat plane. Too bad the engine was a problem.

[@istoppedcaring6209]

well regarding the wingdesign a seperate question is whether it makes the plane capable of substaining more damage planes have a disturbing tendency to lose their tail sections when hit with explosive canons, most however stil used machine guns so

[@firstcynic92]

10:15 Engine displacement is volume, not area.

[@craigd1275]

9:05 The blended body looks a little SR71ish

[@paulbroshear1107]

Moon at might refer to the Great Moon Hoax of 1845 (?), during which a number of newspapers ran a series of article about a new, highly capable telescope was able to see animals on the moon. One of the more exotic animals was the Moonbat, which seemed to reside in temples.

[@randalldunkley1042]

Wonder what its radar return aspect ratio would be?

[@alanpennie]

The hyper engine was an intriguing idea to increase performance. Probably they could have got it to work if jet engines hadn't been so successful.

[@fallen_saint6939]

It is a very pretty airframe. Shame the USAAF saddled it with an abysmal, dead-end engine and ran it to death with said dead-end engine instead of just letting them use Packards or Alisons once problems cropped up. The XP-54, XP-58, and XP-67 are all interesting fighter designs let down by the Hyper engine program and the USAAF constantly changing specifications.

[@noname2490]

The P-38 had a long development in a way but at least it's engines didn't burst into flames

[@rodleonard2088]

Can see some later Tigercat in that set up.

[@ndfgaming6824]

i often foget about the moonbat but i still tjink its on of my favorite ecperimental prop aircraft

[@guypehaim1080]

The displacement of a reciprocating internal combustion engine is the total swept volume of all of the cylinders, not the area.

[@mochabear88]

ty

[@guypehaim1080]

What plane is that laying on its belly in a field and appearing to have jet engines mounted above the wings that we see in the background in some shots?

[@andrewfleming8103]

Bell Airacuda.

[@guypehaim1080]

@@andrewfleming8103 Thanks for your response. I thought they were jet engines' that's why I didn't recognize it.

[@tonyadams6375]

I think The Moonbat is one of the most beautiful planes ever made. Didn’t the Mercury Capsule catch fire as well? A very tragic event. Just saying..

[@Nedski42YT]

Did you put a picture of the Bell YFM-1 Airacuda as the thumbnail to compare it to the overly ambitious design of the Moonbat? Wasn't the Airacuda also jokingly known as the "Barnum & Bailey" clown airplane because it could hold an entire class of aviation students? /S

[@Nolan_J_36]

Such a beautiful aircraft, massive shame that it was so plagued with and eventually saddled with that awful engine.

[@mercoid]

It went down in flames

[@StefOne-nw9un]

i wonder what this beauty could have become with jet engines instead of its troubled piston ones... maybe that proposal you spoke of, to fit both, was a try by the designers to get into that new game? anyway i lobe that plane! as the saying goes "what looks good, flies good" just want to know if it would have kept that promise if it hadn't been let down by its assigned engines 🤔

[@StefOne-nw9un]

*love (ffs --> fat fingers syndrome) :P

[@RemusKingOfRome]

LOL Yes, he's lost it .. great video.

[@intercommerce]

What a great looking plane for 1939, and one I barely remember seeing in the past. But the claims made for it sounds too good to be true (470 miles per hour, cannons, machine guns), its twice as good as their first jet, the Phantom I.

[@overcastfriday81]

It looks like it could have some lifting body benefit, but it really wasn't needed because the F7F could fill the role.

[@NeroontheGoon]

The TigerCat was a frickin beast. Then the Grumman F8F took the cake!

[@brookeshenfield7156]

Aloha and all hail the algorithm!

[@guypehaim1080]

It's too bad that turboprop engines weren't available at that time. They would have been ideal for this design.

[@lllordllloyd]

Love you. Stop with the "solid".

[@guypehaim1080]

These is sufficient to say instead of "these ones".

[@NeroontheGoon]

There was this funny little fighter, maybe you have heard of it, it was called, shit, oh ya, the F-15 Eagle. No mention?

[@evryhndlestakn]

🤔Hey... Ya ya, I think I remember hearing about that flying machine once before, ya ya, he should do an episode. Maybe when it's been around a little longer...say...another 25 years+ or so

[@alt5494]

One horsepower per cubic at around 3000RPM is a significant step up.

[@oliverhorn9951]

Whats the plane in the background of the Video?

[@andrewfleming8103]

Bell Airacuda.

[@robertsolomielke5134]

TY IHYLS -Stunning aero form which IMO caused the overheating due to airflow issues. I love the looks, and armament, but the jet engine doomed it, even if it was not a flaming coffin type.

[@michaeltelson9798]

It would be interesting if this design was converted to jet engines

[@bryanwheeler1608]

The Banshee certainly shows the influence of that aircraft especially in the fuselage & tail, even though it is a more conventional design.

[@cyanicspectreskittleinc.9549]

Funny joke but I bet the left aspect of “moonbat” had more to do with new ideas and a change even if not super radical.

[@hyfy-tr2jy]

not only does Boeing make planes with doors that fall off...they make one way space capsules

[@evryhndlestakn]

Post merging with McDonnell Douglas though I believe.

[@kkteutsch6416]

Contineltal inverted V engine ?

[@pierredecine1936]

A " Handful of Shots " ??? Too much - Whatnot !

[@TinyBearTim]

So it’s a strange looking hornet

[@janwojtyna3392]

You forgot to mention high income taxes in excess of 50% for all

[@floofles9473]

i can't believe you neglected to mention them creating the f-15 shame on you sir

[@evryhndlestakn]

And they originally arose from the Douglas Aircraft Company, makers of the awesome A-4 Skyhawk.

[@floofles9473]

@@evryhndlestakn kind of a shame more people don't know about these companies having been separate and making their own fantastic birds.

[@evryhndlestakn]

@@floofles9473 too right👍

[@danwest3825]

A real shame for such a beautiful aircraft

[@MaxPalmer-1]

When a service wants to buy "X" fighter planes, many manufacturers want to then sell them a heavy twin engine fighter that generates twice the cost and profit of a more efficient single engine fighter that performs better for half the cost. The mission is not maximum destruction of the enemy per unit of budget, but instead maximum profit. It almost always fails, and even when it succeeds (F-15), it is still twice the cost it could have been.

[@janmale7767]

It was a remarkable design but from my point of view (layman) all those complex curves would not be very practical for mass production!....good video!

[@garykalasa4189]

I think they were just trying to make it look cool for the brass.

[@scootergeorge7089]

With the proven Allison V-1710-49/53 that powered that powered the P-38 Lightning producing 1,325 HP, it would seem 450+ MPH would have been feasible. Nearly 300 HP more than the combustible Continental turd. Later Allison engines had 1,475 HP. And say, 4 20 mm cannons would have been a more practical armament.

[@wbertie2604]

The Continental was supposed to have the development potential to produce a lot more than the Allison. But it never got close.