The Failed "Super-Bomber" | Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 'Barling Bomber' [Aircraft Overview #63]

[@RexsHangar]

F.A.Q Section Q: Do you take aircraft requests? A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:) Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others? A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both. Q: Will you include video footage in your videos, or just photos? A: Video footage is very expensive to licence, if I can find footage in the public domain I will try to use it, but a lot of it is hoarded by licencing studies (British Pathe, Periscope films etc). In the future I may be able to afford clips :) Q: Why do you sometimes feature images/screenshots from flight simulators? A: Sometimes there are not a lot of photos available for certain aircraft, so I substitute this with digital images that are as accurate as possible. Feel free to leave you questions below - I may not be able to answer all of them, but I will keep my eyes open :)

[@christopherlee627]

The cone of arc channel does a series called 'fake tank Friday's which covers imaginary or fictional tanks from novels, movies or early representations. I know you've done a fair number of never built prototypes or one offs but how about fictional aircraft or even rumoured aircraft. For fictional ones you could cover the inspiration for the captain America flying wing, ie the amerika bomber project, that sort of thing. Just a thought.

[@steveshoemaker6347]

Thanks again my friend...Excellent as always video.....Shoe🇺🇸

[@NewbType07]

Absolutely loving the videos so far, may I suggest the Russian Sikorsky "Ilya Muromets" heavy bomber and it's versions? I feel like if fits the kind of aircraft you cover on the channel quite well.

[@Rich6270]

CA-15 please

[@gaseous1524]

Hs-129 is quite interesting with its type of payload and how the indicators n such are located on the outside of the cockpit right on the engines

[@richardw64]

After watching a great deal of your shows I feel easy in saying that most failures could be attributed to underpowered engines, apart from those that shook themselves apart. Keep 'em coming Rex.

[@RemusKingOfRome]

It was flyings "teething" period, you had to fail to learn ! ..unfortunately, at a great cost.

[@lafeelabriel]

Unreliable engines killed their fair share of planes as well.

[@Caseytify]

The XB-15 was also under powered, even though it was technically a success, being designed as a "state of the art" program.

[@nektulosnewbie]

Engine power could only do so much with such an overbuilt aircraft.

[@MsZeeZed]

Well each extra engine means more fuel, more coolant, more tanks and pipes and on it goes.

[@shatterquartz]

It never ceases to amaze me how fast aviation technology evolved in the interwar decades. It's a sea change between the aircraft of the early 1920s with their ungainly struts and cables, and the streamlined machines of the late 1930s.

[@emjackson2289]

What stuns me is that the RAF ended up with bombers that their fighters couldn't intercept on exercises . . . .

[@jjohnsonTX]

I worked at Newark Airport for over 15 years. Had no idea that Newark was home to an aircraft manufacturer. Thanks for this.

[@bigrob966]

That comic about sinking a ship is easily worth any time I might spend letting ads run, and despite budgetary constraints might be worth my first Patreon sponsor. What a crazy find, dude.

[@Rondart]

proving once again the time honored tradition of summarizing an important event with what was essentially the 1920s version of a rage comic

[@m.streicher8286]

It's amazing how long it took for closed cockpits to become standard

[@whyjnot420]

Open cockpits make a lot of sense when you think about visibility. Being inconvenienced by the airflow is better than being killed by the guy you didn't see. Closed cockpits being standard only comes once speeds get to the point where it is no longer just an inconvenience. edit: so in that sense, it is amazing how _quickly_ they came. Due to just how fast progress was made in aircraft design. Contrast this to the automobile, which inherited its design from a centuries old design, that of the wooden wagon. One that never had to change even when the tech used to power it was radically altered, just look at the early cars. Sure it changed eventually, but to be frank a lot of that had to do with aircraft development as well and its application outside of the world of aircraft. Again not changing until speed increases necessitated it.

[@raoulcruz4404]

Typical design philosophy of the time was that open cockpit was essential to give the pilot a better sense of control based on the sensation/sound of the relative wind.

[@anzaca1]

For a long time, aricraft speeds were slow enough that open cockpits were perfectly fine. And given how agile biplanes are, pilots really needed as much visibility as possible. Only once monoplanes become mainstream did encolsed cockpits make sense, as the high speeds necessitated it, and the reduced visibility was ok given the reduced agility of monoplanes compared to biplanes.

[@donjones4719]

The first attempts at enclosed cockpits met resistance from the pilots.

[@whyjnot420]

@@raoulcruz4404 I also seem to recall that there was some concern over the ability to bail out of planes with a canopy.

[@mattbowden4996]

I'm genuinely looking forward to you doing a video on Project B - but I based on your commentary in this video, I recommend looking further into the Naval perspective on the trials. Generally speaking, most post war Navy's had already accepted that it was theoretically possible for aircraft to sink a battleship and nobody doubted that they could sink a stationary, unmanned ship. Billy Mitchell breaking the rules of the operation in order to score a PR coup by sinking the Ostfriesland didn't prove anything that naval theorists didn't already know, but did squander the rare opportunity to study the effects of different kinds of air attacks on a relatively large and relatively modern warship.

[@jonathan_60503]

@Matt Bowden That matches my limited understanding of the Project B. When you do a sinkex the goal isn't just to sink the ship -- it's to have a chance to analyze how various weapons hits affected the ship. That gives ship designers data they need to design more resilient ships, or better damage control (did the hit knock out damage control systems or firefighting equipment; etc.), or both. Gives weapons designers data on which weapons worked (and where) and which didn't; giving them what they need to design new more effective generations of weapons. And gives the folks flying and ordering aircraft information of what attack profiles were most effective (did you need a high release altitude to achieve penetration, or low altitude to achieve accuracy, etc.); and hence what aircraft to order and how best to use them. But to get all that data you need to both hit the target in a reasonably controlled way (so you know what attack profile and weapons caused each bit of damage) and to have pauses between hits to allow inspection of the damage to the ship to be carried out to see how effective each weapon was.

[@tekumeku2244]

This bomber may have been a failure, but it did lay the groundwork for far more successful long range bombers such as the B17 and B24. Thanks for covering this one

[@TheFlameofIcarus]

It also highlights Mitchell, who perfectly predicted WW2 (in theory, not like "There's gonna be another war in X years be ready"). Naval Aviation dictated so much naval doctrine as the war drew to a close. Every late war US Ship design was literally "FUCK YOU PLANES" and the US had literally designed an entire new AA platform with the sole purpose of vaporizing planes out of the sky (the US 3"/50 Mark33 mount)

[@williams6206]

Omg!! Thank you so much for talking about this aircraft. I have been trying to find a good video about this plane on KZbin for a long time now. The first I heard about the barling bomber was 3 years ago and since then I was fascinated by his history and the plane itself.

[@donjones4719]

I've never seen so much "moving picture" documentation for a plane of this period, or this extent of still pics.

[@sergeipohkerova7211]

This looks like when mom buys me two lego airplane kits and I decide to just mix all the pieces and make one big airplane.

[@Ensign_Cthulhu]

Indeed, why would you not?

[@johnserrano9689]

Your mother has been tracking all your visits to the extremely raunchy porno sites....my guess no more Legos? LoL

[@MyBlueZed]

So many historical examples of aircraft, ships and cars that suffered because engine power development was a bit behind. Great video as usual! 👍🏻❤️❤️❤️

[@sreed8570]

The most amazing thing about aviation is the ridiculously short amount of time that transpired between the beginings like the wright bro's wing warpers and the creation of massive bombers and seaplanes.

[@averagehistoryenjoyer9017]

The Wright Brothers weren't the first to fly.

[@marqsee7948]

Orville died in 1948. Perhaps his heart attack was from a jet flyby.

[@marqsee7948]

@@averagehistoryenjoyer9017 that would depend on your definition of flight. Proven, repeated, sustained, and controlled, it was the brothers. Read historian C.H. Gibbs-Smith for details.

[@tomtweed2138]

Engine and other R & D work was also done at McCook Field, Dayton. Better air-cooled radial engines were lighter and a big improvement over the old Liberty engines (also built in Dayton).

[@benjaminbarrera214]

War, and the threat of war had a lot to do with it.

[@kfcroc18]

We don't see or hear of many big triplanes, awesome.

[@waywardscythe3358]

I am always amazed that you can find so many and such high quality photos and videos of these aircraft. It really drives home that these planes were *Real*. People like you and me climbed inside these wood and fabric machines and actually took to the skies. I'd be willing to do a lot to go back and be a pilot during the interwar period.

[@z3r0_35]

The bit about this thing not being a "true" triplane because or lacking control surfaces on all wings is a strange point of contention. Fokker's famous Dr.1 fighter only had control surfaces on the uppermost wing, yet you don't hear people claiming that disqualifies it as a triplane.

[@drstevenrey]

Very obviously Mr Barling really took some lessons from the Tabor. Thank God he put those engines all further down nearer to the center of the ship.

[@silkyz68]

You need to slow down, how many obscure aircraft are there?!?!

[@whyjnot420]

More than you ever thought existed. For every plane that gets even a shred of fame, there are a hundred thousand which did not get so much as a second glance.

[@magisterrleth3129]

Enough to fill a lot of books, and keep a KZbin channel with a slow but steady upload schedule in business for a good long while. And I rejoice in this, I didn't give a flying Frenchman's f*** about aircraft before I started watching this channel. I was a boat man. And then I watched some videos on carrier aircraft and here I am.

[@WarblesOnALot]

G'day, One for every dreamer, wannabe, and pretender..., and one for everybody who hatched a good idea but either couldn't finagle it to work in practice due to lack of access to the required Technology, Labour, Funding - or a combination of the three...; then there's one for everybody who built their Technicoloured Daydream but lacked the commercial nous and Buggar-thy-Neighbour attitude required to break-even on the cost of designing, building, testing, CERTIFICATION, and packaging in deep layers of Marketing Jism - all of which being absolutely neccessary to lawfully sell an actual Flying Machine, to anybody.... So, yeah, in practice it's only the wildly successful - and outstanding "failfully", designs which lodge in the public consciousess. It requires flooding the market and dominating it for decades with derivatives (DH-60 Cirrus Moth, Spitfire, Douglas DC-2, Cessna 140, Piper Cherokee, Beechcraft Bananna "the Doctor Killer", Boeing 707, etc...), or it takes a Recordbreaking Flight, a Spectacular Crash - or a series of them. Pretty much every Airframe which fails to line up all the Ducks in a row, required to become "widely known and recognised", and then shooting the lot of them with a single perfectly executed volley of rapid fire...; will remain forever "Obscure". Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !

[@whyjnot420]

@@magisterrleth3129 "I didn't give a flying Frenchman's f*** about aircraft before... I was a boat man."

[@brucegibbins3792]

There seems little chance of any let up in the quality and quantity of these fascinating programmes. Thank goodness for that, says I. The continuing evolution of flight ensures a plethora of books, DVDs, magazine stocks and memorabilia generally continuing well into the foreseeable future to satisfy an otherwise insatiable demand. I still have books here on aviation that were once my Father's when he was a lad in the 1920s and 1930s. I have found a place for these to go to after my time is up. An aviation enthusiast friend of a friend, or perhaps a local Airforce museum either at Ohakea or Harewood: each on different Islands, but couriers deliver everywhere these days.

[@raoulcruz4404]

The government mandated the use of inadequate engines and according to one report, several thousand pounds of armor plating but it was “ Mitchell’s Folly”.

[@1959Edsel]

I know of this plane and its ill-fated predecessor because I have a copy of the book "The World's Worst Aircraft." Please do a video on a related pair of planes from the same book, the Boeing GAX and GA-2. The GAX was another of the few post-WWI triplanes.

[@ethanmckinney203]

The best description of the newsreel footage of the Project B tests that was provided by the military (Mitchell) is "deceptively edited."

[@elgato9445]

Thanks Rex for once again detailing an aircraft that I knew very little about.

[@RatPfink66]

Yes, much advancement had been made between the day of the Barling and the XB-15. But technology still lagged in one crucial respect: _power._ Aircraft size and payload were unsolvable problems until engine power/weight ratios could themselves be solved. As with the Barling, the mighty-looking XB-15 was still too slow and too limited in bomb capacity. But it served with distinction on humanitarian missions prewar, and in wartime as the XC-105, on transport duty out of the Canal Zone. So, Rex, please do consider it for a future installment!

[@robbierobinson8819]

Fascinating episode about a horrible looking aircraft and a "failure" that still provided valuable information. YET AGAIN, an aircraft for which the engines would result in its failure.

[@johncox2865]

2000 gallons of water = 17,000 pounds of coolant alone. This thing had to be greatly under powered.

[@lairdcummings9092]

Thank Klowngress and the dancing bureaucrats for their insane insistence on using the crappy Liberty engine.

[@Bialy_1]

That number sounds wrong, the plane would not have any problem with heat for a very long time with that ammount of coolant alone even if you would not instal any radiator on it...

[@stormlord55]

@@lairdcummings9092 I don't believe the engine was crappy but definitely the wrong tool for the job.

[@lairdcummings9092]

@@stormlord55 read up on the reports of the Liberty engine from WWI. Quality and reliability were crap.

[@johncox2865]

@@Bialy_1 i agree

[@jameslawrie3807]

800hp Packard engines were available at the time for near the same weight

[@wolfshanze5980]

Yeah, but they weren't as many in Army Surplus Stock as these engines were.

[@owenshebbeare2999]

There were several engines that were superior to the Liberty, but politics really caused issues.

[@merafirewing6591]

​@@owenshebbeare2999 so would different engines have changed that bomber's fate?

[@georgetazberik6834]

@@merafirewing6591 I would guess, yes. One recurring theme I see in Rex's videos of the pre-40s aircraft is that airplanes could only be as good as the engines that could be sourced for them.

[@BrassLock]

Nice collection of photos, and surprisingly good film clips of this obscure bomber.

[@chrisbricky7331]

What a great presentation, thanks for the hard work and sharing. Chris

[@Alex-wk6yo]

Your channel is super underrated I can’t wait to see the day your channel takes off (pun intended)

[@OscarReyes-ud4vz]

As in an overwhelming number of projects, the engines!

[@petesheppard1709]

The first time I saw a photo and brief description of the Barling as a kid, I couldn't believe the thing could actually fly.

[@Zaprozhan]

I feel similar with the Super-Guppy transport and various Antonov designs, and that Space-X had their boosters LAND after use.

[@rlauder7210]

I'd love you to do a tie up with Drachinifel on the Project B tests. You guys provide some of the best content on KZbin of aircraft and naval matters. Keep up the excellent work👍

[@wolfshanze5980]

Yeah, but Drachinifel will just say "no bomber could ever sink a battleship".

[@atfyoutubedivision955]

@@wolfshanze5980 Except he never has said that.

[@wolfshanze5980]

@@atfyoutubedivision955 observational skills and a sense of humor are two human traits you are completely lacking in, son. If you knew anything about the history of the Navy vs the Army Air Corps over the battleship vs the bomber, proponents of the Navy said no battleship could ever be sunk by airpower, while proponents of the Army Air Corps said no battleship would be safe. People born with the most basic of observational skills might notice Drachinifel is a big Navy guy, while Rex's Hangar often focuses on the type of planes flown by the Army Air Corps. People born with even the most limited sense of humor might be able to make the connection that a Navy KZbin channel might take the stance of Old Navy Admirals. Most people on the planet share these basic traits, im sorry to hear you were born with neither. Sad, really.

[@Maritimesgestein]

@@wolfshanze5980 But at the time this discussion was held in most navies, it was very unlikely that a bomber could sink a battleship.

[@wolfshanze5980]

@@Maritimesgestein Brilliant observation... but you missed your own statement "discussion held in most NAVIES". I assure you, most air corps at the time were NOT having the same discussion... see Billy Mitchell as a reference.

[@sangomasmith]

So looking at a somewhat later example: the B-29 was supposed to have cost $3 billion in total, and resulted in around 3900 aircraft. Each Iowa-class battleship supposedly, meanwhile, supposedly cost $100 million. This works out to around 130 B-29s per Iowa class, which makes me think that Mitchell was on to something.

[@Zaprozhan]

Mitchell was correct, and ahead of his time. WW2 naval warfare goes from the Battleship to the Aircraft Carrier. However, his champion triplane heavy bomber promised too much on the available technology, and being restricted to surplus Liberty engines was definitely a factor. Being the pioneer has a high risk of failure, or not being recognized on how forward you are.

[@mikeholland1031]

They named the B-25 after him

[@davemacnicol8404]

@@mikeholland1031 don't forget the court-martial. That came first 🥇

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

@@Zaprozhan no, Mitchell was not right, first off, the idea that he thought about aircraft carriers is revisionary, Mitchell thought that ALL ships would be rendered obsolete by aircraft, hell he arguably hated aircraft carriers just as much. His insanity was that he wanted ALL military funds to go to the Army Air Core (which he *just so happened* to have total control over), he was talking about aircraft and "air torpedos" (missiles before they were even invented) of having a level of power they don't even process today within his lifetime. Fate screwed him less times then he rigged tests (the Battleship sinking was complete bullshit). He was a toxic bastard and he should have stayed in disgrace.

[@Caseytify]

Upon re-watching, I noticed you furthered a couple of bomber myths with respect to sinking battleships. Despite Army complaints about Navy restrictions, the bombers were only successful because the battleships were not moving, nor were they manned or defended. A fully staffed worship capable of moving and self-defense, is much harder to sink. If memory serves, very few warships were ever sunk by level bombers during World War II.

[@coreyandnathanielchartier3749]

The HMS Prince of Wales, HMS Repulse, IJN Yamato, and a dozen other sinkings of capitol ships by aircraft renders your theory, moot.

[@inTIMMYdator44]

​@@coreyandnathanielchartier3749none of the ships mentioned were sunk by large level bombers. They were all sunk by relatively small single engined attack aircraft. The only successful level bombings of ships occured while the ships were stationary

[@steveeisenhauer3003]

You tried to be a smart ass. Kinda but you though, huh?​@@coreyandnathanielchartier3749

[@bull614]

Yeah he definitely needs to have a talk with Darchinifel. Rex is normally on point, but on this one he is way off.

[@benjaminrush4443]

Great to view the original heavy bomber trials. Thanks.

[@leno4920]

Great stuff Rex ...👍🇬🇧

[@hungryhedgehog4201]

Can you imagine the stress of all the stakeholders having spend the last months and thousands of dollars making a plane where nobody could say if it could even take off.

[@morriganmhor5078]

Rex, you really should join forces with Drachinifel as an expert on navy and make a comprehensive video on that Plan B bombing tests!

[@brianedwards7142]

Planes like these are like concept cars: they might not have a production run but parts of them live on in future models.

[@thhseeking]

One contributing factor to the "failure" was the insistence by the Army of using the Liberty engines. I wonder if they'd used more powerful engines if it would have fared better?

[@RedXlV]

Even with the ludicrous imposition of such underpowered engines, I wonder if it would've gone better by upping it to 8 engines by having them all in pusher-puller pairs. But still, if they'd been allowed to do something rational and use, for example, four of the Packard 1A-2500...that would reduce the weight of the plane by a thousand pounds while increasing the horsepower by about 900.

[@marioreillo3664]

I know it's a little out of your scope, but a video on the career of Billy Mitchell would be really interesting.

[@wlewisiii]

"Fall out of the sky like a tranquilized pigeon". My laugh scared my cat ;)

[@jmackman]

i heard it was not the ludicris engine placements but the counter balance weights broke away from its mountings and thats why it flipped over

[@SanderAnderon]

brilliant, informative and as usual well-produced

[@projectemerdon]

Coincidentally I was looking at the Wikipedia article for this aircraft 2 days ago!

[@Caseytify]

Your article was interesting and well written.

[@jasonz7788]

Awesome thanks for the great work Sir

[@bluetopguitar1104]

This airplane has fascinated me since i saw it in a book of bombers when I was an elementary school kid in the late 60s. Too far ahead of its time. Can you imagine a radio control Model?

[@loddude5706]

Nice electric challenge for Flite Test ('Six turnin' & LiPo's burnin'! : )

[@CameronJamesH]

I found one here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l37Ve4qljNuNm7c&ab_channel=ChuckClark

[@TayQuartermain]

Yours is the first channel the I have ever considered being a patreon of, but then I remember that I'm poor, so have a thumbs up instead, 🤪👍

[@hicknopunk]

You are killing me with "Billy Mitchell" name dropping 🤣🤣

[@bigblue6917]

You have to think how much more different it would have been had they got the engines they wanted. Also if Mitchell had not been so hell bent on putting everyone's noses out of joint.

[@Caseytify]

The technology just wasn't there yet.

[@jimtaylor294]

The concept was also flawed, as WWII would prove Heavy Bombers to be better at bombing stuff which didn't move about, or, just as crutially, have plenty of [eventually radar directed] guns to reply with.

[@Bialy_1]

@@jimtaylor294 Its not WW2 plane, there was no radar technology at the time(not to mention weapons guided by radar) and battleship is moving but its ability to avoid boombs is very limited(especialy in 1920). The only flaw here is the idea to use heavy boombs instead of torpedos but in the same time ability to drop boomb was making this boomber more universal so you can't claim it as failure. And battleship proved to be much bigger failure during WW2 as they failed to influence the war when you take into consideration how expensive they were, most of the use for them was the propaganda value of having the biggest, the strongest ships in your fleet.

[@jimtaylor294]

^ Completely wrong. (and a large part also logically incoherent) First off: No Bomber *ever* managed to sink a Battleship with unguided bombs while the latter was moving, let alone one with radar direction or proximity fused munitions. (the Arizona, Tirpitz & others all were entirely static at the time) Second: The only Capital Ships lost to aircraft were to ones with Torpedoes, a weakness WWII put paid to. The Torpedo Bomber in particular was rendered obsolete during the war, by the fact that allied AAA made flying low and slow enough to drop said weapon suicidal (drop a torpedo too fast or high, and it'll be smashed apart by the water or won't run properly: tis an impassable barrier of physics), which is one reason why the allies lost no Battleships to air attack after 1941, *despite no shortage of attempts by the axis airforces* . Third, nope, false equivilance. The Battleship achieved a great deal, much of it simply by existing. Case in point the atlantic & med' merchant convoys; both the Germans and the Italians avoided trying to strike them with warships, because they couldn't overpower the capital ship escort. Similarly: the US fleet both niether got smooshed by the IJN's surface fleet, because it had capital ships of its own; *and* most of its large fleets only surrvived increasingly desperate japanese air attacks, because they had Battleships to both draw the brunt of attention, and the volume, size and quality of AAA required to protect the fleet. (again, not even the most intense kamikaze attacks so much as disabled a single Battleship, while costing thousands of japanese aviators their lives for attempting it) The last Battleship wasn't wholly retired until 2011, for good reason. Though the Atomic Bomb had supplanted them as the go-to weapon of status, they had proven themselves as useful assets in WWII.

[@RichardGoth]

another fantastic video! thanks!

[@jonsouth1545]

I'd have gone for 8 engines in the pusher puller pairs not the 6 with 2 in pusher-puller pairs and the other two in a standard configeration

[@johnacott1238]

So sad that this amazing beast was destroyed, as it would be perfect for display in any aircraft museum!

[@charleslacombe8325]

My thoughts exactly ! I guess "Hap" Arnold saw it as a Bad reminder, I mean they court martialed Billy Mitchell over it. After seeing what they (Senatorial Blowhards) did, or Tried to do to Howard Hughes over the "Spruce Goose" I can just imagine the REAL story on many of the acquisition programs during WW 2 ! With all the "back room" deals and payoffs that you KNOW must've taken place.

[@stevetournay6103]

Well...any really honkin' big museum, anyway. 😁

[@DiegoPatriciodelHoyo]

Rex, please DO release a video om Project B! Thanks. Your videos are great.

[@jeffbybee5207]

Wonder if they could of added 2 more pusher engines raising total hp from 2400 to 3200 hp.

[@straybullitt]

I had no idea what airplane that engine photo was. I just knew that it wasn't a Gotha.... Rex wouldn't make it that easy. And once again, he did not disappoint.

[@loddude5706]

Certainly weren't Maybachs, which gives me the dunce's cap . . .

[@964cuplove]

Great video as ever, really great what facts you are able to dig up !

[@milesheming3848]

I have a book called "world's worst aircraft" and so many of the aircraft covered on this channel are in that book

[@Double512]

wild how back then making a bigger plane basically just meant taking bits of small planes and using a ton of them together, like something out of Besieged

[@johnforrester9120]

Billy Mitchell ahead of his time

[@disbeafakename167]

Too low of a ceiling it couldn't get over the Appalachian mountains?! Were they taxiing their way there?!

[@bryantblake1877]

It is really mind boggling how far aircraft design, construction and performance advanced between the early 1920’s and late 1930’s!😊

[@Caseytify]

Or the early 30s. The B-9 first flew in 1931, and the B-10 in 1935. In fact the B-10 was faster than front line fighters.

[@JusticeSR71]

Spare a thought for the chap who attempted to fly from the Eifel tower with a pair of home made wings....he left a 14cm imprint in ground below😮

[@kiwitrainguy]

He had a heart attack on the way down.

[@nathanbond8165]

I actually made a 1700 scale diorama of that Martin bomber bombing and syncing the Alabama it came in second place in the model contest

[@WoodsBeatle]

Rex im looking for any information on WWII-era aircraft gunner reflector gunsights from France, Russia, Germany, Italy and Japan as well as Cold War-era gunsights. Additionally, I'm curious as to whether or not turret mounts can accept any machine gun/autocannon (or any firearm for that matter). For instance, could a Scarff Ring have a pair of any firearm or strictly the machine guns it was originally designed for

[@lewiswestfall2687]

Nice video

[@drstevenrey]

Liberty engine. Did they, back then, not know about the concept of a skip. That thing was obsolete even before the first Word War ended.

[@MarkkuKoljonenwTinja]

Thanks! :D

[@Kevin-jb2pv]

It's nice to hear that Billy Mitchel actually did something with his life before he pivoted and decided to make a career out of lying about Donkey Kong and filing frivolous lawsuits.

[@chpet1655]

Interesting I got an ad for the BOM an actual piece of gear for small airplanes now that’s good advert placement unlike the usual assortment of cars and tampon or make up ads for military channels LOL it’s like getting a Reel or Depth-sounder ad for a fishing channel I suppose

[@antoniovillanueva308]

My God, I love it. I must have one.

[@burtbacarach5034]

One has to wonder if maybe another pair of engines would have helped?Or would it be a case of diminishing returns?Ar any rate that sucker was HUGE!

[@wolfshanze5980]

Diminishing returns... added weight of an under powered engine means you're not really gaining anything (and now have to carry more fuel too).

[@robdgaming]

Thank you very much for this video. I'd never heard of this monstrosity, or its Tarrant predecessor. I noticed the Witteman company logo included a drawing of another enormous aircraft. It appears to be a flying boat with five sets of biplane wings. One more wing than the ill-fated triple-triplane Caproni. On the same logo, why is the man on the Wright Bros-type aircraft hanging on by his fingers?

[@stuartkc]

Would you please consider doing a piece on the Orenco D?

[@stevetournay6103]

I want to say one of the wheels from this monster was preserved...but I may be mixing up my giant bomber aircraft, as I know for certain that a main wheel from the Douglas XB-19 survives at NMUSAF.

[@philsharp758]

Asides from the detailed and accurate information I love your wry sense of humour. "Dropped out of the sky like a tranquillised pigeon" made me laugh. It took Taranto and the destruction of Force "Z" for Billy Mitchell to be proved right. In modern times I think the aircraft carrier ( of which in the past I have been a great advocate) is now similarly fated due to hypersonic missiles.

[@louierenault7344]

14:05 might just be thr first iteration of the "nooo you just cant x" meme

[@Telecasterland]

Sounds like the requirement to use the liberty engine was the main problem.

[@Itsjustme-Justme]

155 km/h. This thing could have been intercepted by 1916 style fighters. Barling and Mitchell were just innovative enough to prevent it from crashing as its predecessor did. But they were not innovative, not well informed or maybe just not couragous enough to try the most advanced wing design. Combine that streamlined fuselage with Fokker style wings: Biplane instead of triplane, thick airfoil, narrowing towards the wingtips, semi-trapecoid planform, internally braced, semi cantilever design with external struts and wires reduced to a minimum. Biplane tailplane designed in the same way, with only 3, bigger rudders to keep drag low. Design it for 8 engines from the start with an option to reduce to 6 if the overall weight allows for it or to 4 if stronger types get available. Now you have a useful heavy bomber with a flight performance more or less on par with other 1920 bombers but with much higher bomb load.

[@sugarnads]

Easy being smarter 100 years later

[@grahvis]

Much the same speed as the Gothas at the end of 1917, they weren't easy to deal with.

[@Riccardo_Silva]

I'm the 176th to watch it after just 12 minutes after you delivered your vid...well,my compliments to you! 👍

[@Pootycat8359]

My understanding is that Mitchell sank those ships, NOT by dropping bombs ON them, but NEXT to them. The bombs exploded in the water, and the pressure waves ruptured the hulls, below the water line.

[@merafirewing6591]

Still it was a very unfair test by leaving the watertight doors open and also the bulkheads.

[@stevetournay6103]

The bomber named after Mitchell was rather more successful than that named for Barling. Pity Mitchell himself did not see it. That's one of those situations where you'd like to bring a historic figure back briefly. I'd take Gen. Mitchell to the local aviation museum which has a nice flyable Mitchell in its collection...

[@eyo8766]

He'd be elated to hear about the Doolittle raids

[@polygondwanaland8390]

Jack Northrop lived to see the blueprints for the B2 Spirit, which is extremely satisfying

[@patrickshannon4854]

Twice you said "Fairfield" referencing the small city adjacent to Wright field. The name is "Fairborn". Fairfield is the small city adjacent to Travis AFB. I grew up in Dayton, "The Birthplace of Aviation", according to local signage, and additionally I was stationed at both installations. Fairborn was a lovely little town whose used car lots were full of British sports cars brought back by airmen returning from overseas duty. In contrast, Fairfield wasn't so lovely. I always thought it was an odd coincidence that both city names minus the 1st letter were (F)airborn, and (F)airfield.

[@tedsmith6137]

Can I suggest looking at the little known Bell L-39, which I believe was the first US swept wing( conventional) plane to fly. See if you can work out what colour it was!

[@alexdemoya2119]

Small suggestion: include inflation adjustment for costs.

[@lexington476]

Do you have an episode on a Dornier Do-17? I can't find one. If not, episode idea 🙂!

[@robertwalker2052]

I would like you to cover the overlooked aircraft designed and built in Englewood, Colorado by the Alexander Eagle Rock Aviation Company. I cannot give specific dates.

[@untruelie2640]

To be fair, Mitchell was right but he was also wrong. Airplanes would indeed become the dominating element of of naval warfare, but in the shape of carrier-based torpedo bombers and dive bombers. The horizontal heavy bomber he had envisioned was more or less a complete failure when it came to sink moving warships. The Ostfriesland and the Alabama were stationary, had no crew, damage control or defensive weapons. Even in WW2, horizontal bombers almost never sank any major warship, except for the Tirpitz (which was - of course - stationary at the time).

[@merafirewing6591]

And I still don't see him as a visionary, but only a prick. And I guess there is a reason why the army and navy don't like him.

[@Calilasseia]

It's amusing to note, that Mitchell's advocacy of strategic heavy bombing, derided by his opponents in the 1920s, would 30 years later be pursued with frightening vigour by Curtis LeMay, culminating in the utterly hyperbolic leviathan B-36, and the only marginally less gigantic B-52, the latter likely to become the first (and possibly only) military aircraft with an active service life of 100 years.

[@kevinbarry71]

Mitchell; so you designed a plane that was a complete in total disaster; please come over here and design an even bigger airplane that supposed to do everything I want in my wildest fantasies. What could possibly go wrong?

[@bronsonperich9430]

🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@merafirewing6591]

Which is why I never see him as a visionary.

[@100thmonkey]

You mentioned the idea of a separate video for ''Project B' - did that video get made?

[@TheDkeeler]

I think the this aircraft was a fabulous success for the fact it didn't crash and kill the crew including Barling.

[@lexington476]

10:58 is that water tank size correct, 2000 gallons? 2000 gallons of water weighs 16000 pounds. Is it a 200 gallon size tank.

[@lebaillidessavoies3889]

the visit of the museum of horrors continues...(and we like it)

[@sirrliv]

If you do decide to make a follow-up video specifically on Project B, I implore you to please seek a collaboration with naval historiographer Drachinifel. It is a topic that has come up numerous times in Drach's videos and that he has been planning to make a video on himself from the naval perspective, not to mention it is an event he has spoken about with more than a hint of disdain, suggesting tomfoolery on both sides though more seeming to place the blame on Mitchell for rigging the tests in the Air Corp's favor as much as possible (stationary targets with no crews for anti-air defense or damage control, no power for pumps or other emergency facilities, in short not even remotely demonstrating any practical military capability beyond the bare basic concept that was never really in question. And even then it took an embarrassingly long time to sink one battleship).

[@tim7052]

Dolittle's experiment to "prove" aircraft could sink a battleship is moot when you think about it really. All he did was to demonstrate aircraft bombing a stationary - and undefended - battleship. The point I'm making here is that bombs will sink any ship - as long as you have enough of them and a cooperative battleship that's obliges the attacking aircraft to be stationary in the water while they bomb it, and, not firing back in defence. IMHO his experiment did prove any theory, only to confirm bombs will sink a defenceless ship that's dead in the water.

[@merafirewing6591]

Yeah, but a moving Battleship would've definitely proved his tests very wrong.

[@tim7052]

@@merafirewing6591 That was the criticism he got at the time.

[@merafirewing6591]

@@tim7052 that's one of the reasons why I don't see him as a visionary. Even as an American, I'm not much of a fan of the idea of sinking a stationary ship just to please my ego.

[@tim7052]

@merafirewing6591 Agreed. But to give credit where credit is due, leading the B-25 attack on Tokyo right after Pearl took some balls. 👍

[@nathanbond8165]

Can you imagine what it must have been like to be a farm boy in 1923 and see that giant three-wing Leviathan lumbering along in the sky over your head it must have been a real thrill

[@pavarottiaardvark3431]

It's okay, Curtiss Seahawk, you'll get your vid one day....

[@scootergeorge7089]

At a time when aircraft designers were more and more seeing the monoplane as the future of aviation, it's difficult to see a huge triplane aircraft as being "ahead of its time."