Going Back to WW2 to Design The First Jets

[@messier82ac]

A quick note: A "Diagonal" or "Mixed" compressor combines axial and radial flow elements. Someone on my discord reminded me they existed. What's your favorite "generation" of fighter jet? For me, it's probably Gen 4, as I appreciate the aerodynamic advances of the generation, although the gritty nature of Gen 3 is also very pleasing to me, and I will certainly do a build from each generation for the UFB soon!

[@TurtlePanda-op5gq]

Me personally, I like the Me 262, but the generations, I like the 3rd, 4th, and fifth. Thanks for the great content!

[@NareshSinghOctagon]

I think it was History Channels' Dogfights where I heard the Gens for aircraft overall,not just jets. Gen I was WWI all the way to WWII,any and all pistons essentially,Gen II was the Korea War era,gun based transonics,Gen III covered 'Nam,the supersonic missile users,Gen IV was after 'Nam,all the fly by wire goodness,and Gen V was the 1990s onwards,all the supersonic stealth aircraft that were otherwise similar to Gen IV. There's also all those Gen IV+,++,or 4.5s where they try to be economical choices that can keep up with Gen V. It might be fairly unspecific,but hey,it's far better then War Thunders' tier system.

[@carfactor4518]

You forgot to include the p59 in the beginning

[@TDOBrandano]

That turbocharger animation seems to show the turbine side, not the compressor. It could work for the compressor analogy if you were to run the animation in reverse, though there are some subtle differences between the turbine and compressor shapes.

[@Titan117-gq9jo]

Design request: Modernized OV-10, it should have all of its original feature kept the same or improved. It’s M60s replaced with 4 20mm. An extra Hardpoint on the wings beside the already existing one. Focused on supporting special forces (like dropping off a 9 man squad out of two OV-10s and then later on maybe dropping off supplies while giving light CAS support). Its feature to put a 20mm rotary canon would be cool to keep as an option. And more if I think about! Please I think it would be a cool idea.

[@Idaho278]

As an aircraft mechanic I physically winced when I saw the landing gear retract into that little gap between the fuselage and engines. Maintenance downtimes on this aircraft would have been outright insane, even factory assembly would have been extremely challenging

[@messier82ac]

"The maintainer suicide rate isn't the only killing this aircraft is doing"

[@r1zmy]

an engineer's dream is a mechanic's nightmare as they say

[@collinkaufman2316]

​@UCuIJ-3SwPwFMMEpFXt6KyBwand a architects dream is the nightmare of a civil engineer

[@flotaq1266]

​@@r1zmyAs a Mechanic, i 100% agree.

[@maggsstuckey487]

over the top engine access is what did it for me

[@blue-raptor4017]

W KZbin algorithm recommending the video when it actually came out

[@GOODENOUGH69420]

Fr

[@A_river_dirt_cheese]

Fr

[@spencerash4388]

Fr fr

[@badhabitsfr]

frrrrr

[@klafsen]

No notification tho...

[@TheCrabReal]

"Its more likely that the wing-sweep of the 262 was a result of the weight and balance being different than expected" If i remember correctly thats actually, word for word, *exactly* the reason.

[@gort8203]

You are correct. On Feb 8 1940 there was a meeting on 262 project definition and construction status. Woldemar Voight, head of the project office, stated in a later interview that that the reason for choosing the straight wing had nothing to do with high-speed aerodynamics: “BWM soon ascertained that is turbojet would be still larger and appreciably heavier than the company’s least sanguine revised calculations had suggested, thus presenting us with serious centre of gravity problems. Aircraft development had progressed too far for us to dramatically revise its layout and we were forced to introduce what we considered a somewhat inelegant ‘fix’ in the form of swept outer wing panels to resolve the CG difficulties presented by the heavier engines. Thus, it was to be purely fortuitous that the Me262 was to become the world first operational fighter featuring wing sweepback; a radical departure that, at this stage at least, reflected no attempt to reduce the effects of compressibility.”

[@Krasniye]

yep! And fun fact the 262 was originally designed as a tail dragger! So they had to sweep the wings also just to make a tricycle gear work

[@air-headedaviator1805]

@@gort8203the weird thing about that is how the Heinkel design, He-280 used straight wings without needing that kinda balance.

[@gort8203]

@@air-headedaviator1805 That's not weird, they either did not have the same CG problem or they applied a different design solution. I can think of at least 2 other ways they could choose to resolve the issue if they had it. In any case they clearly did not see a need to sweep the wings to make the airplane faster.

[@gort8203]

@@Krasniye I don't see how sweeping the outer wings panels was necessary to have tricycle gear. The position of the inner panels did not change. And Voight made no mention of that in relation to the wing sweep.

[@fefferen]

''this one's just a prop fighter with a jet engine slapped on it'' me when J21RA/A21RB:

[@F15ESTRIKEEAGLE-iw9nl]

Me when yak 15

[@D9fjg]

​@@F15ESTRIKEEAGLE-iw9nl me when f9f

[@Vacxt]

@@F15ESTRIKEEAGLE-iw9nlye but he actually mentioned that one

[@errantalgae]

fun fact the late war japanese pusher prop would have had the same fate which is neat

[@fefferen]

@@errantalgae i guess, but the XP-55 looks almost identical to it

[@solarwatch_5712]

I think it’s interesting how the whole “first gen jet fighters were just prop fighters with jets” is oddly scientific-when using the scientific method, it is most useful to only change one variable at a time. That way, you can isolate the changes in outcome as being (partially) determined by the factor you changed. With first gen fighters, airplane designers and manufacturers would have know well what a prop plane of similar design would need in terms of materials, fuel, and maintenance, but that couldn’t have been the case with jet fighters. So, if they only change the method of propulsion (and as little else as possible) they can figure out what the basic needs of a jet fighter are as compared to a prop fighter, and go from there. (As an aside, I highly doubt this was unintentional, even the military industrial complex has standards.)

[@garfellow5038]

Why is that odd?

[@bengrogan9710]

It was more a case of wartime pragmatic solutions- the more of existing production could be used the better it will be for rapid prototyping

[@HughTube-ni6kb]

LOL! I was reminded of the XF-88B

[@geronimo5537]

In reality, they already had these airframes. Add some reinforcement and slap a bigger engine on it is exactly what happened. Nothing really scientific about that. Once they reached even higher speeds the engine outperformed the airframe. Thus they slowly needed to reinvent the wheel decade after decade.

[@P7777-u7r]

The prop fighters of the superpowers (UK, US, Nazi, USSR) of WW2 were radical designs already for aircraft. Compared to prop aircraft of ww1 and the interwar and most aircraft before which were basically giant wood and canvas kites the ww2 piston fighters were the first to have features that would be later associated with jets.

[@WheelieTron3000]

Now do the alternate reality where we go back in time and subject the Wright Brothers to Little Dark Age edits of fighter jet gun-cams, A Clockwork Orange style, just before they build their first prototype.

[@mirrorslash028]

Every single pioneer at that time would've killed themselves on the spot

[@charlesdewitt8087]

Little Dark Age edits?

[@gabrielhenson5751]

@@mirrorslash028 "are you joking, what is that, how the F did we get here? US??? WE ARE HOW?! man... what the, How would i even? oh? _OH._ that _might_ actually work...."

[@dylannix4289]

“Imagine showing Tiktok to a caveman. Bro would spontaneously combust” - MealTeam6

[@WhenDoesTheVideoActuallyStart]

Santos-Dumont spent the latter decades of his life campaigning against the military use of airplanes, and during a 1932 civil war he had a mental breakdown when he saw the Brazilian government using planes to bomb it's own cities: "My God! My God! Is there no way to avoid the bloodshed of brothers? Why did I make this invention which, instead of contributing to the love between men, turns into a cursed weapon of war? I am horrified by these airplanes that are constantly passing over Santos" A few days later he took his own life.

[@gort8203]

People should keep in mind that turbojet engines guzzle more fuel than pistons when used at low speeds and low altitudes. When used at high speed and high altitude jets are quite efficient compared to pistons.

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

yeah, that's the big thing with turbines in any shape or form: efficacy at high speed, super inefficant at low speeds. It's also why turbines never took off for cars and had rather limited success in trains.

[@bluespidergaming7719]

@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 to be fair with cars jet engines are not practical no matter what rpm they dont themselves produce much torque without massive gear reductions and throttle response is horrid and fuel effiecncy for cars sure if you added those gear reductions great now you have a car with infinitely variable torque (theoretically) but now how are you going to put that power to the ground practically so you've just invented a slow car with infinite torque thats measured fuel economy is tens of gallons per mile

[@hideakibanno7540]

@@bluespidergaming7719 I'd recommend you check out the Chrysler Turbine car or the Rover-BRM

[@GooseOfYork]

If I remember correctly, the pull cord for the Jumo 004 didn't spool up the turbine itself, it started a 2 cylinder lawnmower engine that took about 5 minutes to spool up the turbine. Even crazier if you ask me lol

[@mushroom_of_doom2148]

I saw a me 262 taxi across an airport today and got to see a jumo 004 cutaway last week. It's truly impressive hearing the sound of such an old aircraft and seeing a cutaway of one of it's engines just makes you marvel at the engeneering and manufacturing they where able to do 80 years ago, I don't want to know how many manhours it took to manufacture one engine.

[@gort8203]

There are no original Me 262s flying in the world today, but five reproduction 262s were built in the USA in the 1990s and early 2000s, of which four are currently airworthy. They use the GE J85 engine, not the Jumo.

[@Elysium4]

​@@gort8203As far as I know due to material shortages the original 262 engines had very short service lives. They were built with what little resources the Germans had on hand, so they couldn't handle the high stress environment maintained inside an engine for long periods of time. Modern reproductions improved on this by having access to better materials, greatly extending the service life of a single engine.

[@mushroom_of_doom2148]

The one I saw was a reproduction owned by the Messerschmidt foundation and operated by Airbus. The cutaway jumo wasn't mounted to a plane since it's a cutaway.

[@gort8203]

@@mushroom_of_doom2148 And the sound you heard was unfortunately not representative of the Jumo.

[@mushroom_of_doom2148]

@@gort8203 yes, sadly. It still looked amazing and felt really cool seeing it in Action even though I didn't see it fly

[@jehoiakimelidoronila5450]

Despite looking like P-59, you also inadvertently made your GT-45 look like Canada's CF-100 "Canuk", their 1st jet

[@cplshujumi]

It's got a hint of T-37 Tweet too!

[@ScLeith]

Hey messier, hope you're doing well and are weel hydrated, eating well and taking care of yourself.

[@fluppet2350]

It also sort of looks like a CF-100, because I am obsessed and I see it in my dreams and anything with a slight resemblance is a CF-100

[@prex2000]

F-89

[@chanman819]

@@prex2000 CF-100 is right. It has the wing root engine placement. The F-89's are podded in the fuselage.

[@chanman819]

It took me forever to find a picture of the CF-100 Mark 3 that had the belly machine gun tray!

[@cplshujumi]

Amazing plane, the CF-100, and a fellow Canuck! But this plane, I was seeing a mix of the P-59 Airacomet and the T-37 Tweet myself.

[@prex2000]

@@chanman819 lol

[@sokandueler9578]

There’s a unique sexiness to those really early jets that is unmatched by modern jets.

[@Scobragon]

Damn GT Motors is building a banger after banger. This is an extremely beautiful plane.

[@julianbrelsford]

7:10 the jumo 004 engine was started up with a gasoline engine putting out about 10HP. That engine was ITSELF started with a pull cord or electric starter

[@He_Who_Burns]

having watched almost all of these videos i love how much you can tell he’s improved at building the planes, but also editing videos too

[@mab2187]

I like to imagine generations as a graph, Gen 1 were WW2 jets like Me-262, P-80, Meteore and anything thats post WW2. Gen 2 starts with early vers of jets near the early 50s during the Korean era. Gen 3 starts with aircraft with proper radars and roles assigned to them like F-4, MiG-21. Then certain Gen 3 were upgraded to Gen 3.5 or 3+ (whatever term you like). Upgraded F-4s, MiG-21s, MiG-23, certain jets like MiG-25s, MiG-27 included. Gen 4 starts with better everything but now roles are standardized towards multirole, very few examples are single roles only. Gen 4.5 or 4+ is just lack of full stealth focus. Gen 5 is Stealth. In summary, Imagine a progress bar, some are near Gen 2 but not quite there yet, their still in the Gen 1 category, Some are near Gen 4 but still in Gen 3 category. I.e. Early gen 3, Late gen 3, Early gen 1, Late gen 1, Early gen 4, Late gen 4, etc etc.

[@WhenDoesTheVideoActuallyStart]

Uuhmm, aktchually, this is a gen 3.14159265359 jet arrcraft

[@NietoKT]

I always classified them as: Gen 1- subsonic, guns only Gen 2 - transsonic, guns only, in rare cases carrying small amounts of air to air missiles Gen 3 - supersonic, focus on large, bulky interceptors, with main focus on fighting with missiles, or as I like to call them "missile trucks" Gen 4 - supersonic, focus on smaller, nimble fighters Gen 4.5 - more advanced/upgraded/adapted for use of electronic warfare systems, sometimes coated in radar absorbing paint for reducing (not deleting entirely) radar cross section. In short (excluding stealth as it is) cheaper option for gen 5 Gen 5 - Stealth And that is, more or less, how it was explained to me

[@Techno_Idioto]

Gen 6 - Optionally manned, stealth, capable of interfacing with UAV wingmen, high-supersonic speeds Gen 7 - Unmanned, Stealth, Near-Hypersonic speeds, stratospheric flight ceiling Gen 8 - Space

[@samueljo7910]

Gotta love how America when designing jets were like: Gen 3: AAAA MISSILE TRUCKS LONG RANGE IS THE FUTURE OF AIR-TO-AIRT Gen 4: wait go back let’s make a really good dogfighter because Vietnam sucked Gen 4.5-5: Missle Truck, BVR is god

[@keyofdoornarutorscat]

@@Techno_IdiotoGen 9 - Rocinante

[@Appletank8]

The way i remembered it was gen 4 was also the advent of multirole due to increasing better missiles and flexibility of the aircraft carrying them.

[@radiomanhans]

@@Techno_IdiotoSPACE

[@Beef3D]

Also to everyone else, do not get this mixed up: The Me262 was the first COMBAT OPERATIONAL jet fighter. NOT the first jet aircraft! in fact like messier showed before, the He280 came before the Me262, but the title of first true jet aircraft is somewhat disputed. what isn't disputed however was the ME262 being the first jet aircraft to see combat.

[@builder396]

7:20 The 262 actually did have a starter motor for each engine, specifically a 2-stroke 10hp gasoline engine, which had an electric starter, but also a pullcord as a backup option. Just saying it because you make it sound like the pullcord is what starts the jet engine itself.

[@onenote6619]

Don't forget the jet bombers - Arado 234, Junkers 287, Nakajima J9Y1 and a whole slew of experimentals just after WW2. Also, mounting your engine close to the fuselage comes with bad sides as well as good. The good is reduced engine-out asymmetry. The bad is uneven airflow caused by the fuselage, and how much damage results if the the engine spits out chunks of metal (which happened distressingly often). Possibly also you might risk the engines ingesting gases when the guns fire. This caused issues for several real-world aircraft.

[@anthonyrowland9072]

The Meteor's engines were originally almost flush with the wing but speed increased when they made the nacelles protrude forward. It gave less disturbed flow over the wings for a good bit more top speed.

[@TheAneewAony]

Worth noting as well, no wartime Meteor was capable of exceeding 450 mph.

[@anthonyrowland9072]

@@TheAneewAony "It's free top speed"

[@TheAneewAony]

@@anthonyrowland9072 True, this simply illustrates how many years behind the British were

[@Lynexus]

my man can be hired by gaijin at that point

[@danielnoahalie9186]

Hell no, we can not allow the snail to steal this man's soul and turn his creations into premium packs.

[@EdgeR2]

bro made a P-59

[@DA_Doog]

Bro made a P-59

[@WhenDoesTheVideoActuallyStart]

Bro made a P-59

[@hybrid_grizzly]

My one note is that muzzle flash and blast from the guns could be a problem for visibility especially in darker conditions but possibly even in daytime. Moving them to the sides of the nose would help if there’s room for that

[@j-ray17]

This has got to be one of the coolest planes you've ever done! I absolutely love the style of gen 1 jets. I design quite a few starships out of legos based on some of the design choices you used. They may not be the most practical but gen 1's seem to fit the esthetic really well in my opinion. Well done!

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

I'm suprised that would didn't use some of the more experimental tech/concepts of the era, like the J37 turbojet, an axel engine designed for the L-133 Starjet, which were supposed to be considerably more powerful then any of their counterparts, and/or the more extreme swept wings of the Me262HGIII which if pared with the previously mentioned engines offer a significant potential upgrade in performance. also, Centrifugal compressors can be seen on later designs, often being pared WITH axel compressors to create what is called a Axial-Centrifugal combined compressor, this is actually rather common for turboprops and helicopters, but since flyout doesn't have Centrifugal compressors it's a moot point anyway.

[@robertpatrick3350]

No mention of my favourite Gen 1! Where’s the De Havilland Vampire! We used to have a couple at work as well as a Meteor…. As a teenager I used to sit all over them and eat my sandwiches in the cockpits (apologies to any museum curators having to deal with the crumbs…..).

[@user-xsn5ozskwg]

Super interesting, I think you did a good job exploring the design philosophy and technology of the time, and I'm impressed the game gave it such realistic performance.

[@derArchy]

Yooooo that plane turned out gorgeous! Phenomenal work mate

[@daniel_f4050]

It’s hilarious how simple design choices can lead to such similar outcomes. You’ve built an A-37 Dragonfly. They look so incredibly similar. Though due to its more advanced engines, and even with a side by side two seat cockpit and enormous canopy, the Dragonfly has a slight performance edge in speed and clean rate of climb. But your design is dramatically better armed for AtA combat as you’ve got quad 20mm vs the A-37’s single 7.62mm minigun. The amazing amount of time you put in to creating your plane was well worth it. It looks really good. And you are dead on that the camo and panels with rivets seal the deal.

[@martykarr7058]

No, not the "Tweet" , the "Clunk" also known as the AVRO CF-100 Canuck.

[@TheCraftedMine]

as an aircraft mechanic: I hate you for making me think about working on this

[@blackbirdsfly]

Ending cinematic got you a sub. You don't put that much heart into something without meaning it, thats my boy.

[@Chapko_]

I discovered your channel about the same time when I discovered Flyout. And they are GREAT ! It's really cool and satisfying to see someone good at what they're building. I was wondering though, could you make a linked video in the description that leads to the full building process, that could be really useful to learn

[@IRUKANJI]

The big shift from Gen-3 to Gen-4 is Low Wing-loading Blended fuselage design (from NASA's lifting body experiments) + Data-link. Euro-Fighter Typhoon gets a pass on this though and goes 4+ for also having Supercruise. Dassault Raphale is more in line with Gen 4 as it's a blended wing fuselage delta design.

[@notmenotme614]

4:29 The difference between the late war props and the 1st gen jets was, the propellor aircraft had reached the peak of their design and they couldn’t improve the piston engine any more. While the 1st gen jets were already just as fast, while still in their infancy, they still had a lot of development ahead of them. Jets were taking off where piston engines peaked (excuse the pun). The problem with the 262 was, too few were constructed too late to make a difference to the outcome of the war.

[@Schwagdag]

Babe wake up! New Messier 82 vid droped

[@plane.355]

14:14 that flaps lever reminds me of hollywood's cockpit

[@kentl7228]

Frank Whittle himself said that he used centrifugal compressors to ensure a superior time period between servicing. He wasn't a fool, that's for sure.

[@blissfulignorance9165]

You make the best fly out videos keep it up!!

[@Sacto1654]

It’s interesting that of the first generation jets, only the Lockheed P-80 (later F-80) and the de Havilland Vampire had a long operational career. I think the center-mounted engine design was the reason why.

[@thetruthliesalways]

How did I not find this channel sooner? Top content

[@BunkerFox]

That is one of the prettiest jet planes I've ever seen. I want a poster of it

[@oliverrugg3732]

DAY IN THE LIFE OF A TRUE METEOR GEEZER

[@strangelove7614]

Made me go back and kinda polish up my JuS-17. These history bits you do are great.

[@VAPhillyFan54]

Love this idea! Would be very interested in seeing a mark 2 version of this with some of the "time period" relevant upgrades.

[@todeilfungo]

Nice, KZbin is speedy to give me those videos

[@existbecausebored8674]

This channel restore my attention span with intresting topic and funny humor

[@gort8203]

This video conflates wing sweep with area rule, but these are not related. The F-86 has no area rule with a swept wing, while the F-104 has some area rule with a straight wing. They are different principles at work and do not depend on each other.

[@iatsd]

That's not quite true. *In practice* they are interrelated, but they're not inter*dependent* which is what he was implying

[@gort8203]

@@iatsd They both reduce transonic drag. Separately. He implied that area rule is related to and a product of wing sweep. Wrong.

[@calvinnickel9995]

@iatsd They aren’t really interrelated, either. Fineness ratio of a wing is interrelated to area rule. The idea that any significant or abrupt change in cross section will induce shockwaves and flow separation-increasing transonic drag and possibly leading to upset in the same manner as a stall. Swept wings are _one way_ of increasing fineness ratio.. just as a wasp waist and shock bodies are two completely unrelated ways to achieve area rule.

[@thecodeofreality]

You should look into the Lockheed L-133, an early take on a transonic/supersonic jet fighter designed before 1942

[@gort8203]

No way was that design expected to be supersonic, even before it was rejected.

[@thecodeofreality]

@@gort8203 actually, from an aerodynamic standpoint the design was very much capable of transonic/supersonic flight. The only thing that would have prevented it from actually going above Mach 1 in level flight would be the engines. It’s thin blended-wing-fuselage reduced transonic drag as the narrow-front wide-back design significantly reduced the affects of compressibility, something that it’s design predecessor, the P-38, suffered from significantly.

[@iatsd]

There is zero chance of that design ever getting remotely close to supersonic with the engines of the time. And the airframe itself wouldn't survive it regardless.

[@gort8203]

@@thecodeofreality You don't know what you're talking about and are just making stuff up. That design was not intended for supersonic flight, period.

[@WrestlingNele]

God damn! I wish your Plane was real because then it would be in WarThunder and i could fly it there. What you did there is a really beautiful design. I love it :)

[@scandalingmusic2160]

wait this is like literally a fully in depth sim where you build the aircraft?!?! even the damage models?! this is crazy and youre definitely right about how cad modeling IN games is a double edged sword, i play JNO, SP, KSP, SE, Beamng, brickrigs (not often), gearblocks, scrap mechanic, dream car builder and like 1 or 2 more that are almost kinda like that but this game blows every single one ive listed out of the water in terms of building, only trouble with these games is that now you have to spend most your time doing something akin to what the developers do when adding planes to a game like war thunder instead of actually flying your the aircraft and using it for intended purposes, still though flyout seems badass might check it out

[@TacticalDumbas5]

I love what you did with the design on this thing, it’s oddly satisfying to look at, but at the same time I wouldn’t want to see that thing coming at me in the skies

[@dcanmore]

1930s Tiger Moth biplane trainer has swept wings, but yes the balance of the aircraft as the Me262 originally was a trail dragger later changed to a tricycle set up. Also prop planes into jets, indeed and the other way round as the Meteor was a test bed for the first turbo-prop engines using the same nacelles.

[@Chrinik]

The 262 HG (Hohe Geschwindigkeit - "High Speed") design studies were meant to be successors focusing more on speed and high transsonic or even super sonic speeds. Given that their wings sweep more and more, the engines move closer to the fuselage and eventually they became almost a delta wing, it would have been interesting to see these as prototypes and see what that would be.

[@ewwiott9599]

I'd love to see a series like this about tank development as well as planes

[@Skylikesavation]

I really love the look, especially the fuselage and canopy shape

[@AARONSHEERN]

I've always loved the look of dual engines mounted in the wing roots like the F2H!

[@alexcovey1200]

I can comfortably say that is one hell of an aircraft. Simply Beautiful

[@capapofa]

having a lawnmover pull starter thingy on jets was the most first generstion jet thing ever btw ultrakill reference hows pinos prime going

[@lukesmith8896]

In your videos, there's always one real good joke or edit a third of the way in that reminds me to like the video.

[@mecadragoon]

the swept wings on the me 262 were not even for aerodynamic purposes but because they had to manufacture it that way, if i remember correctly it had smthg to do with the engines

[@sychro_1122]

the 004 engines were heavier than the original design spec so they had to be shifted back to keep the centre of gravity the same, so instead of a full redesign they just swept the wings

[@Mellowbaton]

Love this era of planes

[@F15ESTRIKEEAGLE-iw9nl]

Same

[@IngemarBirrell]

Happiness comes when your work and words are of benefit to yourself and others.

[@MichaelMckinnon-q6e]

The first US Military jet was the P-59 Airacomet though. The Junkers Jumo 004 turbojet was used in the Avia S.92, but the Messerschmitt Me 262 in German service during WWII was a BMW 003 or BMW 004 which had a slightly higher performance than the Junkers Jumo 004

[@zimozim]

Love this series! Cant wait for the next video of the gen 2

[@lightspeedvictory]

Always a good day when Messier-82 releases a video. Will you be doing carrier aircraft in this series? Requesting a supersonic stealth attack helicopter that uses canard rotor wing technology for VTOL/low speed flight but turns into an oblique wing for forward and supersonic flight.

[@SallyRhodes-rg7ni]

It's never comforting to know that your fate depends on something as unpredictable as the popping of corn.

[@deceptively_flat]

nice, opened KZbin at the right time

[@naturewaving3897]

I reckon they should have a second set of wings

[@demonicsquid7217]

Yeah, call them bi-somethings, like bi-wing, or maybe bi-plane.

[@NietoKT]

Fun fact: Yes, this abomination does exist. Yes, it was mass produced. And yes, the concept of it probably was made up while someone was drunk. Look up the "PZL M-15" xD

[@blademaster2390]

Oh god, I just looked that up That is disgusting and I love it. Apparently it was designed in Poland, but it looks more like something you’d find thrown together from scrap metal in Louisiana or Alabama.

[@duncanmcgee13]

I'd say the FJ-1 would be Gen 1. Granted it had a very likited production entered production. It went through a serious amount of RND to become the F-86 tho

[@雷電Z]

Can’t wait to see the variable wing geometry craziness of the 70s

[@ClaraRaglan]

Although there may be tragedy in your life, there's always a possibility to triumph. It doesn't matter who you are, where you come from. The ability to triumph begins with you. Always.

[@HughTube-ni6kb]

Interesting design. Getting a real Avro CF-100 vibe from the design.

[@TurtlePanda-op5gq]

I built a Lego V1 rocket while listening to this.

[@TinyPotato_Chip]

anyone else gonna talk about how weird the diagram sounds at 4:44? Quite literally says "Suck, Squeeze, Bang, Blow" 😭

[@cplshujumi]

That's literally how it's taught to aircraft mechanics and flight crew a lot of the time actually! It's an easy way to remember the stages of engine work. Intake (suck), compression (squeeze), combustion (bang), and exhaust (blow).

[@kondzio-konradtu3389]

nice video

[@GG-ir1hw]

A lot of early jet got their basic design modernised with swept wings and more powerful engines. Such as the Fury -> F86 and the attacker -> swift also the sea hawk eventually evolving into the hunter and also the F9 panther -> F9 Cougar.

[@EightHades]

That ad made me want to join this fictional air force

[@leviclark4525]

Absolutely great video!!! ❤

[@erdogandagl602]

I think youtube suggested a fun game... and for the first time the algorithm worked properly...

[@GregAlfred-y2v]

The fish listened intently to what the frogs had to say.

[@waynemathias8074]

Pretty decent first effort. I would've done the Gen 1 with different goals in mind. For ex., one engine in the fuselage w/intakes at the wing roots; landing gear set in the wings, opening outward for a wider stance. Ideally it would simpler to maintain, use less fuel than a twin, and be easier to takeoff & land. Kinda like an F9F Panther, a late '40s design featured in "The Bridges at Toko-Ri".

[@HoofmanJones030397]

I always followed the Dogfights scale of fighter craft generations, which had piston engines at Gen 1 and Gen 2 was all the subsonic jet aircraft.

[@ClumsyProto]

Close enough, welcome back blackburn buccaneer

[@GODofEverythin9_]

Wake up babe, Messier 82 just uploaded a video!!

[@Gameboy_oficial_acount_0]

This is beter then a video game model

[@Maxcism]

So is everything built being represented a aerodynamically? Like angles of the air intake, fuselage, gears

[@lisaridener7514]

I miss one of his old videos where after a missile that he made in the video came back after missing it target the first time and doing almost a 360 lock on it and still hit it. I miss that video. I wish she kept that one.

[@P7777-u7r]

As for the landing gear just make it like a U-2 spy plane: just have 2 simple wheels right in the belly and a second pilot chasing it down the runway in a racecar to help land it.

[@sometimesidreamaboutcheese]

Horten Go 229 has entered the chat: "Hello there"

[@lynx8779]

The look at those early jets with the integrated wing jets…

[@lynx8779]

Beautiful

[@atomicskull6405]

So into what generation does the British Electric Lighting fit? It was developed in the 1950s during the era of transonic fighters but it's top speed was mach 2.27 and it could do mach 1.1 in a vertical climb.

[@alexbattaglia8297]

my favourite ww2 jet fact is that the English and Germans separately designed two different jet propulsion systems and both debuted them on a fighter jet that was put into service at very similar times

[@Bosnian_pyramid]

daddy is happy that you posted rn pookie82 you’ll be bred in t-minus 20 minutes

[@messier82ac]

🤨

[@ParkApple-ik4ig]

@@messier82ac run...

[@Kracktide]

Holy shit, he actually talked about the 262 without all the revisionist bullshit. I'm in love

[@eatafox]

I have nothing intellectual to say about gen 1 Fighters. But the Meteor in WT slaps. It's got enough power to climb in to a nice altitude, and excellent manoeuvreability to out turn most planes on the first pass. And it has the optimal armament.

[@richardjayroe8922]

262 was the first mas produced, and fastest of it's gen, but I digress, other points were spot on

[@NayuzAqua]

4:39 they also liked to burst into flames out of nowhere for no reason. They just liked to transform the plane into a shooting star.