The Insane Engineering of the Thunderscreech

[@Berkana]

Your introduction to this 'abomination' was awesome. I wasn't entirely interested at first, but after hearing how you introduced it, I was hooked and had to keep watching.

[@RealEngineering]

Glad the intro did it's job!

[@terran9264]

It’s clear that Real Engineering hates this plane almost as much as he hates the imperial system lol

[@RuralTowner]

WHAT?! I CAN'T HEAR THE PUN IN YOUR STATEMENT...PLANE IS SO NOISY!

[@ianherbison]

@@terran9264 l”,😊k😊k😊kk😊

[@Volvith]

@@terran9264 To be fair, this thing has no right whatsoever to exist, not on paper, and certainly not in the air. Making this an unmanned drone for the purpose of psychological warfare might be an idea worth exploring, but anything that uses those propellers as anything other than a weapon of psychological warfare doesn't deserve a test run. I love this plane. _It's the worst plane._

[@christiankroemer4267]

Gotta love how the test pilot's first assumption was "You will have to fight me to get me back in that plane."

[@griseocattus4092]

This is why pilots trained for freaking YEARS.

[@AverageAlien]

how's that an assumption?

[@MonkeyJedi99]

@@AverageAlien Whenever I see a word that doesn't make sense in an otherwise coherent posting, I am often forgiving enough to blame auto-complete on phones.

[@johnbockelie3899]

The B 36 bomber was so loud that the enemy could probably hear them before they arrived. This plane needed no weapons, the jet they shown relied on its sound alone.

[@CurmudgeonExtraordinaire]

@@MonkeyJedi99 -- Yeah, and then there is the case where someone is using Google Translate to translate from their native language to English or maybe they do the translation themselves and are just not as fluent in English as they thought that they were. Of course, some people are also too lazy to go back and edit a previous post even when they see that the wording was incorrect.

[@Th3Shrike]

So that's the inspiration for the sound of my laptop's performance mode

[@tomasinacovell4293]

That's right, Bob... it would probably make a much more successful radio controlled aeromodel.

[@kosztaz87]

@lil_diabetes Problem is, it got removed only for you, I could still see it. I reported too, but for others it will still be there until it gets reported by enough people (I have no idea what that number is). I have noticed in the recent years that these spam bots are getting more and more widespread, and in many instances very elaborate (advertising crypto etc.).

[@MonkeyJedi99]

@@kosztaz87 KZbin COULD have gone after that problem, but chose instead to hide the thumbs-down counter "to combat negativity". Way to lazy out for the low hanging fruit.

[@scottgoodgame3943]

@@tomasinacovell4293 The sex girl or the plane?

[@PizzaPowerXYZ]

@@MonkeyJedi99 who knows they might even remove the report button

[@TheMightyKinkle]

That quadruple take off at 2:34 is insane

[@Irfan87]

Are those Skyrays?

[@MatthewHerbert1997]

@@Irfan87, yes they are!

[@Irfan87]

@@MatthewHerbert1997 Thank you

[@toasterhavingabath6980]

That last one looked like it was gonna hit the deck-

[@longshot7601]

I think that even more insane than the quad launch was the guy bouncing the nose of a Shooting Star off of the ground @2:12.

[@CamH-mc5wt]

One of the engines that was in this monster is currently on display at the Kansas Aviation Museum in Wichita. It is just one of the two coupled turboprop engines, but it is still pretty fascinating in a horrendous way. It was described as a 'mechanical nightmare' to route the power through the two driveshafts from the rear of the aircraft to the front, and then to route all that power into a single gearbox. The best I can describe it is *'janky doesn't even scratch the surface'* Oh and I almost forgot, as stated in the video, the engine itself was mechanically unreliable and failed all the time. So yea.

[@WhiteOwlOnFire_XXX]

This plane is no louder than a jet engine. The loudness is a myth. The Russian tu95 bomber has blades that are actually louder than this plane. All modern jets using after burners are louder than this plane.

[@andrewfidel2220]

​@@WhiteOwlOnFire_XXX Wrong, on the first test flights residents of a town 55 miles away complained about the noise, no jet powered plane does that.

[@Q3results]

​@@andrewfidel2220literally, I live less than 20 miles from Heathrow and several RAF bases, I can't hear nada lmao

[@JohnDoeWasntTaken]

@@WhiteOwlOnFire_XXX Uhh I don't know why you think your single comment on KZbin debunks all of the evidence and decades-old eyewitness accounts that contradict it.

[@RobertNagel-s2z]

​@@WhiteOwlOnFire_XXX How do you know this when there is no running models of this plane? You need to provide some reliable data before you go voicing opinions on this, and you have none

[@pattonorr7572]

Mustard yesterday, Real Engineering today… the holiday season has started early

[@RealEngineering]

Man Mustards video yesterday was so good. Those renders 🔥

[@adorimirable]

Both cold war too, pretty nice

[@biohazardindustrieswr697]

FR

[@MyselfTheodore]

We are blessed!!

[@Raj-gr6dy]

I agree 100%

[@AnonymousFreakYT]

Early in the video, it is mentioned that early jets had poor "climb performance" - to be clear, the issue was that early jet engines could not throttle up and down quickly. To change from "0% thrust" to "100% thrust" took a long time - many seconds. Some very early jet engines could take more than a minute. That means making rapid throttles changes are impossible. While top speed was high, and even maneuverability was good, dogfighting often requires rapid changes in throttle, which jets were bad at. Piston engines can *VERY* rapidly change throttle settings (think about how quickly your car can go from idle to redline when you floor the pedal in neutral.) The Navy specifically wanted rapid throttle change because when coming in for a landing on an aircraft carrier, the plane needs to be at low/idle throttle, but if they miss the arrestor wire, they need to throttle up to 100% very rapidly to be able to lift off again before running off the end of the deck. Something jets of the time couldn't do - if an early carrier jet missed an arrestor wire, the pilot would eject and the plane would dump into the sea off the end of the carrier deck. The Thunderscreech's big benefit (as mentioned ~8:40) is that they could change the blade pitch to run the jet engine at one speed and change the amount of thrust it was producing by changing the propeller pitch. So it could have the speed of a jet, with the rapid-thrust-change of a propeller plane. In the late '50s, early '60s, jet engines were developed that could rapidly change throttle, allowing for full jet fighters to be more reasonable for use on carriers.

[@Jeremy.Bearemy]

Is that what they refer to as "Spool time"?

[@AnonymousFreakYT]

@@Jeremy.Bearemy Yep!

[@chrisrichards2544]

I believe I am correct to say that just before "catching the wire" during landings on board a carrier, the pilots of jet aircraft still throttle up just in case the wire is missed or fails ... that way they can take off again and go around. Commonly known as a "bolter"?

[@AnonymousFreakYT]

@@chrisrichards2544 That is correct.

[@AnonymousFreakYT]

@C K almost as useless as your comment! But thanks for the interaction with my comment.

[@halliwedge]

Seeing those 4 jets launch from the Carrier in doubles was awesome! You get some insane footage for these videos.

[@liammurphy2725]

Awesome indeed.

[@AxxLAfriku]

HOLY HOLY!!! I can proudly say that I have the two HOTTEST women on this planet as MY GIRLFRIENDS! I am the unprettiest KZbinr ever, but they love me for what's inside! Thanks for listening ha

[@kiryu5499]

@@AxxLAfriku who asked?

[@midgetman4206]

@@AxxLAfriku Out of all channels please don't come to this one. (As well as mustard)

[@leovang3425]

@@AxxLAfriku yeah we can tell you're the "unprettiest" youtuber. Please leave and quit promoting your Channel, maybe more people will like you then.

[@caesar_cider2777]

Fun fact: This aircraft was believed to have produced a sound of or exceeding 200 decibels. Sound is _no longer considered sound_ beyond 194 decibels.

[@tire.c]

@@FakingANerveif it wasn’t a fact then it wouldn’t be a comment

[@tire.c]

@@FakingANerve thanks!

[@ILaunchNukes]

Wouldn't 200 decibels instantly kill everyone nearby? Sound 180 decibels or higher can kill

[@aguywhoplaysgames]

@@FakingANerve or you could google it instead of waiting for the commenter to see your reply, find a source, and edit his comment to include it. You are the epitome of laziness

[@FakingANerve]

@@aguywhoplaysgames Since you're being a prick (I did Google it before posting the my first comment) why don't YOU Google how loud the Saturn V launch was. 😘🖕

[@TLTeo]

I just realized - it's fascinating how similar the profile of these supersonic propellers are to the wing of the F-104! Short, thin, sharp leading edge, no camber...and indeed, that wing is *extremely* effective at producing lift above Mach 0.7 or so!

[@ItsMe-vg4vj]

The stages of wing design and engines used has always fascinated me. To see the progression through trial and error. This fuse is beautiful though as you see.

[@mohammadsattar5488]

I remember reading about an office in Japan where the workers all suffered from headaches during the working day and they did a lot of investigating into why from looking into gases or outside interference but one day the found if. The problem was that they had a fan that was on all the time and just one of the blades was slightly bent which sent out a very low sound that would induce these headaches in all the workers.

[@OinkBalloon]

Oh cool where did you read this?

[@mohammadsattar5488]

@@OinkBalloon I honestly cannot remember but it was a short story that was animated but it was a true story. I'm sure if you try typing something in Google or on KZbin about it you might find it. Sorry just couldn't help.

[@OinkBalloon]

@@mohammadsattar5488 no problem! Have a nice day/night!

[@sargera1]

talk about psych warfare and it turn out just a low freq messing yer head

[@TheInvoice123]

Infrasound same as wind turbines

[@TimeBucks]

I have never heard of this plane before and it is fascinating

[@argh1989]

Hopefully it stays that way, you'd probably suffer ear damage!

[@BufferThunder]

You said you never heard it before, i though it was loud.

[@AsbestosMuffins]

both surviving jet-propeller prototypes left are in the dayton airforce museum, they're really crazy to look at

[@jeremycahillnkids]

@@argh1989 ih

[@michaelrmurphy2734]

I have and it was really whacked!

[@jimrobcoyle]

I grew up with this plane mounted on a pylon outside of the BFL, Meadows Field airport passenger building. I remember The Red Baron P-51 team trying to borrow its propeller for a speed record attempt without success.

[@Ripper13F1V]

I remember the Red Baron, that thing was un-real

[@mvhew]

I remember it there at Bakersfield also while I grew up. Glad it is now at the AF Museum and now protected from the elements.

[@MrHurst-lb1rn]

Wonderful video. As a former P-3 mechanic, I have to say your explanation of how a propeller works was amazingly informative and you explained it on a level easily understood by a non aviation type. Excellent video. Very impressed. You gained a new sub.

[@backwoodsjunkie08]

This aircraft seems absolutely terrifying to fly, I got to hand it to the pilots that flew it on test runs! I've flown several single engine aircraft and done a lot of RC flying in my day so I know a little bit about aircraft knowledge. And you're absolutely right about the sopwith camels.... I had a giant scale that was a handful to fly! That sucker would not turn unless you are giving it full rudder, even if you banked it at 35° it would just want to go straight. I couldn't imagine having a scale model of the thunder screech, that would be one interesting RC model to fly!

[@bugzlaif1239]

Imagine that :) that would be a weapon.. Literally a propeller driven missile (hope we didn't give some peope bad ideas with these comments )

[@ScrapHeapFPV]

I found this plane when researching what happens when I drive a prop tip to supersonic for an rc speed plane I'm working on not a thunderscreech replica but I'm spinning a prop as fast as I can electric so I was curious was doing calculations and realized my prop might well go supersonic

[@cshan2313]

When you thought Tu-95 was really loud, I don’t even want to know how much louder this plane would be

[@simonm1447]

The B-36 even scattered thin WW2 windows in barracks around the airfields

[@julianbrelsford]

It has fewer propellers but apparently the noise-per-propeller is vastly more

[@swordsman1137]

@@julianbrelsford exactly, the fewer prop blade make it need to move faster, which make it worse in vibration and noise aspect.

[@MonkeyJedi99]

See? They should have produced at least one wing of these to fly chase on the Tu-95 and out-loud them out of the air.

[@1994CivicGLi]

Not even the Tu-144 can beat the Thunderscreech.

[@maschinen181]

suprised they didnt deploy it as an area denial weapon by destroying ears wherever close it flew

[@biohazardindustrieswr697]

Thats what i thought

[@Aereto]

The ultimate ground buzzer

[@teaandmedals]

WHAT???

[@Matt_10203]

Hearing denial weapon

[@primodragoneitaliano]

@@Matt_10203 "The enemy can't hear you coming if he is deaf" *taps forehead*

[@TheKurtkapan34]

Tacit(not tactic) Blue was not an actual production plane but a technology demonstrator. It lives on in the great B-2 stealth bomber. Tacit Blue worked as intended.

[@DonVigaDeFierro]

Yes. IIRC was specifically a stealth demonstrator. Hence the bathtub shape, but I may be wrong on that.

[@roryoconnor4989]

The School Bus

[@zashbot]

@@roryoconnor4989 paint it yellow with a face and call it The magic school bus

[@egmccann]

@@DonVigaDeFierro Stealth and, as I recall, testing sensors. Which also was quite successful.

[@jeffbenton6183]

@@roryoconnor4989 The *Alien* School Bus, as I've heard it called.

[@andyrobson7686]

I liked the RF-84 Thunderflash (the reconnaissance version of the F-84) at first sight because it was one of the first jets to move the air intake from the nose, to the wing roots, and looked truly sleek. So did the "Thunderscreech", but I'd heard of its horrendous noise. I didn't know anything about all the other problems the plane had, though. Thanks for the great video.

[@Gargantura]

a

[@thelegendaryblackbeastofar39]

It is my understanding that the need for the propeller was NOT for shorter take-offs but for improved thrust-response. The jet engines of the time had very sluggish throttle response. If a landing had to be aborted it took time for the engine to increase power. Hardly ideal for a touch-and-go on a short carrier deck. The same is true when trying to adjust for sudden changes in tail vs headwind on landing approaches. Contrast this to a propeller aircraft can which can adjust thrust on-the-fly simply by changing the blade-pitch. The engine can be left at high rpm in case power is suddenly needed. Even today, turbo-props deal with micro-bursts far better than jet-airliners and generally can set down better in fast-changing wind conditions.

[@svanefossen]

“I like planes." - Wendover Productions Nice touch there 😂

[@dsdy1205]

could you leave a timestamp pls?

[@svanefossen]

@@dsdy1205 0:26

[@dsdy1205]

@@svanefossen thanks! damn 240p.

[@Tushar_Talwar_09]

Huge props to the cameraman for suffering the thunderscreech's deafening noise on our behalf and providing us with good footage

[@masol3726]

HA! Props! Get it?

[@kcindc5539]

I see what you did there

[@netherwolves3412]

No no no the props were very small

[@KlaxontheImpailr]

Oh shit, that's right. 😮

[@LeviathantheMighty]

"You aren't big enough, and there aren't enough of you to put me back in that plane." This was riveting, thank you!!!

[@anonymouscausethatshowirol828]

Decibels are a logarithmic scale of the pressure created by a sound wave compared to a reference pressure. Every 10 decibels you go up, the pressure increases 10x. If you go up 20 decibels, the pressure is (10)^2 times the previous pressure, or 100x. This thing was said to produce 200 decibels. A rock concert is around 120 decibels. 200 decibels is 100,000,000 times that

[@zachtomlinson5030]

It makes me so sad to hear this described as an "abomination". This was a serious feat of engineering and it deserves to be respected from a problem solving perspective. I wish there were still living examples of this scientific marvel. I would love to hear it fire up!

[@jacobs4545]

this is redditor youtube, where infantilizing history equals mass appeal and updoots from people pretending to be intelligent.

[@ratkeep]

@@jacobs4545 well that sure is one way to look at it

[@bigsmokeinlittlechina174]

@@jacobs4545 >redditor Rent free

[@jacobs4545]

@@bigsmokeinlittlechina174 YWNBAW

[@TeenWithACarrotIDK]

I highly commend how they made such a stupid idea work somehow.

[@huntercressall9610]

TACIT Blue was a stealth testbed and ground radar demonstrator. It was also insanely successful in the data it gathered for use of compound curves in stealth architecture. It was the first such aircraft ever built. The radar it pioneered is now in service so there's that.

[@andyharman3022]

TACIT Blue developed the stealth technology that fed directly to the B-2 Spirit bomber.

[@dgthe3]

@@andyharman3022 And they were told to share some stuff with Lockheed for the F117.

[@EatMyYeeties]

Yep! And the weird shelf looking thing? Take a look at modern stealth planes. You'll see why that was an important discovery in stealth tech. Every single stealth fighter/bomber has that line.

[@2MeterLP]

"Our jets cant take off from aircraft carriers." "So lets fund research into better engines, right?" "No, lets build a supersonic prop monstrosity loud enough to make ground crew vomit!"

[@bustanut5876]

Xf-84H was not developed by sounds, it was developed for the navy.

[@CurmudgeonExtraordinaire]

Researching better engines would have been an ongoing process... You have to remember that at this time, we did not have carriers with the current steam catapult system on them, so the aircraft had to be able to take off all on its own... This video uses images from later carriers that had steam catapults and as such, that might confuse some people... I suspect that most aircraft, even today, cannot take off from a carrier without a catapult... I seem to remember back when I was in that there was one aircraft that they said *could* take off without the catapult, if it started it's takeoff from the very aft of the flight deck (i.e. the area where the planes are normally landing) and continued forward all the way to the bow... It's been a long time, but I think it might have been the F-14 and it still required both afterburners to the on...

[@2MeterLP]

@@CurmudgeonExtraordinaire inventing the steam catapult is still a much saner and simpler solution to the problem than "supersonic prop plane"

[@matthowells6382]

@@2MeterLP I think the steam catapult was already invented by the British and in use on some Royal Navy carriers whilst this plane was in development which makes it an even more strange proposition

[@CurmudgeonExtraordinaire]

@@2MeterLP -- 20/20 hindsight... At the time, you probably had multiple development efforts going on, on various fronts... The problem with steam catapults is that they would have required a MAJOR refit of the existing WW-II era aircraft carriers that were still in service at the time... I was stationed in an aircraft carrier and I can see how that would be a MAJOR refit and put the carrier out of service for quite awhile... Most likely, it would only be attempted at the next major overhaul of the ship and then you have to factor in whether it is worth it given the lifespan of the ship at that time... The angled deck carriers had them and were able to do simultaneous takeoffs and landings because of it...

[@anguskeenan4932]

I have been studying engineering at university for 2 years and I watched real engineering for a couple years before I went to Uni, what is surprising me now is how he is able to explain some very complex mathematical concepts in a very simple way. Coming from the position of learning these concepts the traditional way and then Hearing him explain them he has done a great job of keeping the relevant info in without overcomplicating things.

[@carlnordstrom7533]

Check out NASA-Gulfstream propfan from the late '80s and the GE UDF and the PW-Allison Propfan on the MD-80 and now the advances in what's called open rotor technology, all leading to lower noise and higher efficiency. It's really interesting. You can do the math and see what the tip speeds are (hint: supersonic...). So this idea hasn't been abandoned.

[@DerKrawallkeks]

well he doesn't know what he's talking about. For a channel called "real engineering" this is really bad. Listen to the bullshit after 13:00. 1. 13:09 Propeller TORQUE has a reaction TORQUE on the plane, not force 2. 13:17 the rotation speed has zero influence on this effect (a high rpm prop might even use lower torque) 3. 13:24 the effect most likely did not get worse at higher speed, and even if, definitly not for the reason of the higher rpm, but rather a different engine torque or pitch 4. 13:52 the inertia of the prop certainly did not overload the pitch control, since it has absolutely nothing to do with the pitch 5. 14:02 if the governer lets the rpm increase(maybe by reducing pitch), that is because/while torque is REDUCED, not increased. Definitly not causing more torque on the aircraft 6. 14:19 this effect did not effect WW1 rotaries more. He's completely mixing up gyroscopic torque (of the prop or engine acting as a gyro) with regular coaxial torque/reaction torque 7. 14:54 completely useless statement saying it could roll to 30°. It can roll to any attitude if it's not counteracted, there is nothing stopping it at 30° 8. 15:05 BOTH ailerons are actuated, not just one. (only one is increasing in drag, causing the yaw.) That's less than two minutes of video... I think the rest was a little better, but the quality is horrible. They/he just did some wikipedia reading, some google, and then repeats something he has not understood.

[@JozefLucifugeKorzeniowski]

I was 2 years into my mech eng degree when I too knew enough math to be sort of awed by it's complexities, power, and reflected a lot on how you can't see very many depictions of high level math anywhere

[@JozefLucifugeKorzeniowski]

​​@@DerKrawallkeksyou seem like an asshole but not necessarily an incorrect one. as long as he knows the right equations to use when and can draw the correct answer he'd make a passable engineer. you with your focus on correct verbage ought to consider a masters and then teaching these concepts. a lot of good engineers fall down at proper communication of their work. I don't particularly care for this engineering focused channel because the creator buys into the metric>imperial nonsense. anybody in north america who has taken basic university chemistry along with the math prerequisites probably has the metric/imperial conversion factors roughly memorized and converts with little effort and while scaling in metric is easier to learn; once you've learned imperial scaling as a kid it's as useful and easy as metric. when I hear people vocally lambast imperial measurements I think; well the system served the Romans pretty damn well.

[@GB-vn1tf]

Honestly your channel is by far my favourite engineering channel as not only very informative but your straight talking without any BS is excellent. Keep it up, the entertaining descriptions are second to none. 👍😉

[@ztoob8898]

For many years, one of the aircraft shown in these clips sat on a display pylon at the entrance to Meadows Field airport in Bakersfield, CA. Meadows' history goes back to the days of hot air balloons in the 1890s. During WWII, it was improved by the Army Air Force so they could use it as a night-flying training field. In 1944, military operations were discontinued, and the field sat idle until the mid-1950s, when it reverted to civilian use. Somewhere along the way, one of the two XF-84H Thunderscreech aircraft ended up on that display pylon, with a small motor rotating the prop at a blessedly-silent several seconds per rotation. In 1992, the Air Force bastards took it back, leaving a nondescript T-38 trainer in its place (until 2015, when the T-38 was moved to Minter Field Air Museum in nearby Shafter).

[@ibperson7765]

“Ten of eleven test flights ended in emergency landings. Between this, the plane violently vibrating from the two driveshafts spinning 14,000 rpm, on both sides of the pilot; the sudden rolling due to the propeller surges; and of course the immense sound that was capable of knocking people over.. the plane never got past the test phase.” 😆 😂

[@benn454]

Soviet Union: There is no problem. XF-84H Thunderscreech cannot explode.

[@ibperson7765]

@@benn454 Did that happen? Youre saying the soviets deployed it eventually, or ?

[@daleguerra5326]

@@benn454 haha

[@benn454]

@@ibperson7765 Chernobyl reference.

[@ibperson7765]

@@benn454 Lol.

[@parkerhollingsed1192]

Love the experimentation, the new animations look absolutely stunning. I am excited to see what is to come in the future of this channel and the associated series.

[@cxcgamer1603]

God these videos keep getting better and better if I ever get hired into aircrafts manufacturing I hope to work real engineering

[@milenatrebjesanin8747]

Best of luck!

[@bobfg3130]

You either have to be a great technician or an engineer. The engineers design the plane and the technicians make the parts...although sometimes the engineers have to help too.

[@CurmudgeonExtraordinaire]

I'm a retired engineer... To go into this profession, a heavy math and science background in high school is advisable just to get into the right college curriculum... Written language skills are also important... Not so much the flowery type that the English majors spend so much time discussing with all their "hidden meanings" crap, but good competent technical writing skills... It is your written words that you use to say what is to be done and what you are promising that your system will do... If you are not precise, it will bite you... :) Aircraft are complex systems and there will be engineers of various disciplines working on it and often not particularly aware of the work that is being done by the other disciplines... Electrical engineering, structural engineering, mechanical engineering, software engineering, and others will be involved and even within each of these, you will find people who specialize in one particular niche...

[@bobfg3130]

@@CurmudgeonExtraordinaire There's aerospace engineering too.

[@dr.feelicks2051]

Stop pluralizing aircraft with an s is also a good start. Elephant addressed

[@BeaulieuTodd]

One of the best, most concise and educational videos I’ve ever seen. This was fascinating.

[@CaptOrbit]

I remember always seeing one of these on display at the Air Force museum in Dayton and being blown away by the concept of playing that was so loud that it could physically knock people over or make them sick. I was further away by the fact that they would have had to have known this plane was going to have a lot of problems, but they decided it was worth building and testing anyways.

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

AFAIK, there was only ONE _Thunderscreech_ ever built.

[@CaptOrbit]

I believe they made two of them, one is on display at the Air Force Museum in Dayton the other I think was scrapped shortly after the project ended.

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

@@CaptOrbit >>> Rodger that...👌

[@SaleProofCarReviews]

I LOVE the XF-84 Thunderscreech! It's my favorite obscure plane of the cold war. There's not a ton of readily available information on it as it was only flown a handful of times in testing. I'm really glad you put this video together as it highlights why the engineering behind the plane ultimately didn't work.. I know it caused illness, but I would be curious to hear what it sounds like upon startup, takeoff, and a fly-by..

[@coiledsteel8344]

You Love it? You Can Have the XF-84!

[@bryanc1975]

I find it pretty interesting, too! It's one of those things that happens to fall right between two technological eras, and just falls down into that crack. In this case between prop planes and jets. Advanced for it's time, but obsolete before it was finished because technology was moving so fast. I think the XB-70 Valkyrie falls in this category, too.

[@Fuzzy_TCO]

I’m retired

[@MrMarinus18]

Though it wasn't the only plane with supersonic propellers. The Tu-95 also had supersonic propellers and it's still in surface today in Russia. It's pretty much their equivalent of the B-52.

[@sargera1]

imagine a p38 with this props

[@lucasokeefe7935]

To be fair, annoying your enemy into submission is undoubtedly the most satisfying victory.

[@SephirothRyu]

So you are saying that this thing is... Untitled Goose Aircraft?

[@terran9264]

@@SephirothRyu It's a beautiful day on the battlefield... and you are a horrible Thunderscreech.

[@SephirothRyu]

@@terran9264 *HONK!*

[@wedecolier6512]

McDonnell XF-88 Voodoo also tried to fly using a supersonic propeller. It would be interesting to see a video about it. Thanks for the animation. This is the first time I've seen such a detailed explanation of the propellers and aerodynamics of the XF-84H Thunderscreech.

[@hyypersonic]

Hey man, long time viewer of your videos here. Im a broke college student (aeronautical engineering) so I can't subscribe to Nebula, but I've had my adblock off on your channel to support it as best I can. You truly are one of the greatest channels on KZbin!

[@user-pb8yw8cw3s]

7:20 increasing the propeller velocity results in increasing airplane velocity too. You're doing an mazing work, thanks !

[@user-pb8yw8cw3s]

@Lonadar13 the velocity triangle is affected by both the radius of the propeller (we keep the efficiency by twisting the pale) and the advanced velocity of the air or the plane (keep efficiency by tilting the whole pale). Right ?

[@Macintoshiba]

Imagine being on an aircraft carrier, somewhere down deep in the engine rooms, and you can tell that the next combat air patrol is taking off by the fact that your eardrums are shattering

[@benn454]

Imagine being one of the poor bastards on mid watch trying to get rack time.

[@bricefleckenstein9666]

@@benn454 Sleeping through carrier deck landings while under the #3 arresting cable was bad enough - I served mid-watch on Ranger for the majority of my Navy career.

[@spvillano]

Well, that and the main screw hub nuts vibrating loose.

[@Macintoshiba]

@@spvillano "all personnel report for the bi-weekly retightening of all nuts and screws on this ship!"🤣

[@JoshuaTootell]

I don't know about a mid century carrier, but I've been in the engine room of other mid century ships. And this plane would not concern me down there.

[@vudiphothisuk]

To anyone who disc golfs… this channel low key surprisingly helped me understand flight patterns of my discs and has seriously improved my game 😂

[@nicholasmaude6906]

The Tacit Blue project ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Tacit_Blue ) was NOT a failure as it was never meant to go into production it was a second-generation stealth-aircraft technology demonstrator meant to test and mature the manufacturing technology for second-generation stealth, these lessons were then applied to the F-22, F-23 and B-2 programmes.

[@x-0728]

The Thunderscreech may have had a horrid sound, but god damn it's beautyful. This is in my opinion one of the best looking planes ever.

[@xwedel]

1:24 Insane engineering: “the recording gives us this fairly standard droning noise” Said droning noise: *demonic screeching *

[@aurorajones8481]

Great job guys. I felt lost w/ the history channel giving out decades ago. Its so sweet to see peeps like you pick up the torch. And frankly well done.

[@ackelcurns4814]

i love how even the cgi clips have camera shake

[@dannywilliamson3340]

Think they "got" the subtle sarcasm? I'd like to kick the inventer of CGI camera shake right square in the cods.

[@KelsomaticPDX]

@@dannywilliamson3340 this comment is inscrutable.

[@dannywilliamson3340]

@@KelsomaticPDX Never heard of "cods"? Cahones, neustrals, family jewels, etc.......

[@GTOAviator]

This aircraft is a literal aerodynamic's lesson. As a CFI who used to teach aerodynamics ground school, I appreciate that :D

[@sbrutcher]

Excellent video. I enjoyed the detailed explanation of why the Thunderscreech was what it was - noise and all - and why it didn't quite work as planned. No massive computing power to help design airplanes back then. Engineers did what they could with their slide rules, but the only way to find out for sure if a design was viable was to fly it. That plus massive Cold War defense budgets gave rise to some really strange and wonderful airplanes. The Thunderscreech was surely one of the strangest.

[@bereal929sb]

Fascinating blog... will definitely do all I can to support your productions. It's important we not lose sight of our past as we all continue to benefit from it every new day. Good job! 👍🏽

[@exploringtheplanetsn]

“Worst of all” Despite it’s looks the the tacit blue was actually quite a good aircraft in terms of stealth.

[@jamesmmusic5806]

"worst of all" was referring to the Thunderscreech not the Tacit

[@jayramsey690]

Wow, this plane seems to have a role in explaining the absolute limits of what prop driven aircraft can accomplish.

[@AnarexicSumo]

Kind of but they accomplish a hell of a lot more now than the Thunderscreech ever did. Because of this aircraft modern turboprops like the C-130 have a reduction gearbox that keep the props from breaking the sound barrier. Instead the blades pitch like a helicopter to achieve faster speeds. They can't compete with standard jets for speed but they beat the breaks off of jets at low speeds and precise control.

[@gae_wead_dad_6914]

@@AnarexicSumo Not to mention the turboprop aircraft beat jets in fuel consumption. Turbojet aircraft too. Don't understand why low budget armies just don't make lots and lots of Turbojet aircraft armed with long range missiles. Don't see how jets are better when speed has become relatively unimportant.

[@bernardi5919]

@@gae_wead_dad_6914 That's why the newest US fighters can't reach mach 2: It's been repeatedly shown that in actual air combat, it isn't super useful to go that fast, especially with all of the maneuvering involved.

[@trendnwin6545]

I wish this caliber of content was produced for schools. Learning would be captivating and would yearn to see more of this.

[@theneedle6785]

School is for propaganda, not learning.

[@leevons_home_vids]

Absolutely love how you animate these videos to make them easy to understand

[@wildpurple005]

“We don’t believe your hearing loss is service related”

[@enque01]

I can't believe I hadn't heard of this airplane before, and now 10 minutes later I still get random outbursts of giggles over all the absurd details.

[@karlk6860]

I have been in and around aviation my whole life and had never head of this plane, incredibly fascinating concept and my whole life thought that the tips of the prop and the speed of sound was the limit. My Father was and aircraft engineer for Belanca out of MN and that was what he taught me the prop tips have cannot go supersonic because all efficiency is gone. Amazing video and I learned a whole lot!

[@adamp.3739]

Hey, I just got a devious idea. How about we combine the sound of a Stuka with the volume of a Thunderscreech?

[@jared.p240]

I don't think you'll be able to hear the Jericho sirens xD

[@overlordemu7765]

Ears are overrated anyway

[@lemomannmusicproductions4074]

No armament would be required, just the dive is enough

[@jared.p240]

@@overlordemu7765 Yeah exactly, we don't need ears!

[@aarongibson9027]

There is a special place in hell for you, sir!

[@crystalsoulslayer]

9:06 Is the control/observation room in there... _in line with the propeller blades?_ You know, experimental, uncharacterized propellers being cranked up to the highest possible speeds with state-of-the-art engines? That seems like a bad idea.

[@davisdf3064]

It seems to be actually in front of it

[@riconui5227]

Well done documentary. Excellent thumbnail description of propellers relation to the airstream; angle of attack vs. relative angle of attack. These test "abominations" are the dead ends we need to point out the better path. The pas-de-deux between engine technology and aircraft design is a fascinating thread of aviation history, one seemingly always a bit out of sync with the other, and leapfrogging along as materials improve. There are bound to be failed experiments in any ambitious engineering. We learn more from our mistakes than we do from our successes.

[@Qashack]

Loved the video overall, but just huge props to the person behind the rendered animation. Absolutely top-level stuff with great attention to detail! Like the desk scene in the intro is just lovely and extremely well done! Or the ground scene with the trees and leaves in the wind, my god it's awesome!! And the material of the plane... Just simply amazing and I really hope all this effort goes appreciated! Makes me wonder what rendering software is being used

[@southronjr1570]

One other issue I didnt see mentioned is the fact that they used ended up using a dual prop setup with counter rotating blades to counter the torque effect also meaning that the sonic booms would collide amplifying the sound even more

[@NixodCreations]

That big reduction gearbox was also probably one of the major sources of the noise on this aircraft; I can't imagine they were helical cut gears.

[@Merthalophor]

Sure it was loud, but compared to three blades cutting the air at supersonic speeds? Probably negligible.

[@ColdWarAviator]

Another excellent video. I think it would be nice if you could do a whole video on gyroscopic procession. I learned about it as a young helicopter crew chief in the U.S. Army 🪖 back in the 80s. It's a truly fascinating property of rotating systems and it seems to come up over and over again in your videos. It's one thing to hear the definition, but another altogether to see visual representations of it in action. Just think about it. Good work again!

[@philipmarwood9327]

Brilliant program. Very well done. So very interesting and we'll put together. Congratulations. Many of these "amatuer" productions are far better than many mainstream ones.

[@baderq8ty99]

because of how insane this plane is, it's one of my all time favorite planes alongside the xb-70 and a few others

[@howegav]

As a person with a hobby interest in Military aviation history, I've never heard of this aircraft (pun very much intended) Great video, fair play to ya. Your efforts are very much appreciated. 👍

[@waficel-ariss2646]

Your animations are absolutely beautiful, keep up the good work!

[@joetuktyyuktuk8635]

What a complicated, convoluted solution to a problem, that was ultimately solved by a catapult launcher on aircraft carriers.

[@TheOtherSteel]

00:07 -- "...Fairchild Republic A-10 Warthog." It was the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt. Warthog was nickname.

[@michael_mouse]

... with presentations like this, it's no wonder your channel garnered over one million views in just four days... wow!.. more power to you sir!

[@jackswanson6718]

I first read about this bird a few months ago, so glad you're covering it in depth 👍

[@klnsbl]

Great video! One thing, at 0:23, the aircraft's name is TACIT Blue, not TACTIC Blue.

[@Oosh21]

It's also the parent of the B2 and is nothing to be ado dismissive about.

[@davecrupel2817]

Pronnounced "tass-it"

[@sulufest]

0:23 Hey… to be fair the Tacit Blue program was merely a test bed to explore stealth features and technology. Its research led directly to the designs of F-117 Nighthawk and subsequent stealth programs. Sure, it looked goofy but it did its job as a research plane.

[@MrAnimal1971]

Finally a truley enjoyable and fun video. Great job. Im not an engineer but i love the content!!

[@HalfInsaneOutdoorGuy]

the amount of work you put into these has to be insane!

[@zachareeeee]

"The sopwitch camel had to use left rudder for both left and right turns" Got me laughing

[@LadyAnuB]

Due to this gyroscopic effect of WWI rotary engines more WWI pilots were killed in training than combat.

[@billtaylor3499]

@@LadyAnuB IIRC, also true for the Army Air Forces in WWII. Navy had to be worse?

[@Nafeels]

If there’s one post-war experimental plane I totally don’t expect to be covered by Real Engineering, it’s the Thunderscreech. Between this and the Tu-95’s massive contra-rotating turboprops that could reach supersonic speeds at the tips of the blades, it’s amazing that prop engines weren’t completely forgotten despite advancements in turbojet tech. Thanks for giving an insight for essentially a flying earrape meme. Edit: After finishing this video I now have a couple of questions. - I wonder if by making the props contra-rotate to each other would not only solve the torque issue, but also make the reduction gear smaller since it now has to drive two sets of props? It would also straighten the turbulent airflow and perhaps quieten it? - Also, how’s the heat management for the Thunderscreech? From my understanding, coupled engines typically ran hotter due to heat being trapped within the system. The He-177 “Greif” was notorious for having coupled DB-603 engines that would regularly caught on fire and further making the plane harder to operate.

[@bricefleckenstein9666]

Error on the timeline. The Tu-95 first flight was in 1952, the Thunderscreech came LATER - and the Tu-95 was IN PRODUCTION though not enough done yet to deploy them by the time the Thunderscreech achieved it's first test flight. The Tu-95 used contra-rotating props to cure the MASSIVE torque issue that engine would have caused - and to handle it's output.

[@Nafeels]

@@bricefleckenstein9666 Updated. Turns out the turboprops on the Tu-95 were of German origin, and was a solution from Kuznetsov to combat the piss poor range delivered from 50’s turbojets on the Myasischev bombers. The props were so loud that even submarines in deep waters could track the plane from miles away with SONAR. Also, the same engines would also power the Tu-114, once the largest plane in the world and also still holds the record for being the fastest propeller-driven plane to this day with a top speed of 540mph. You made me learn a lot of stuff today. Thank you.

[@bricefleckenstein9666]

@@Nafeels I served on USS Ranger - we had at least 2 Tu-95 (probably marine variants) overflights during Westpac 1979, so I'm quite familiar with how loud the Bear can get. It's likely we had other overflights while I was asleep, as I worked mid-shift. The Tu-114 absolute speed record for a prop-driven plane was broken in 2003 by a current turboprop business plane (576 mph) but Guiness lists the Bear itself as the fastest production prop-driven plane at 606 mph. That is an estimate however, as the actual Bear never made an official speed record attempt - but given it's a lot smaller cross section than the Tu-114 with the same propulsion, it WOULD be a good bit faster. I suspect that 606 figure would have been from the MANY radar contacts the US Navy has had with Bears over the decades.

[@AlexanderBurgers]

contra rotating propellers don't do much to quieten anything, the air from one prop smacking into the other is half of the reason why they are so loud. Having the tips go supersonic and basically giving a 'drone' of continuous sonic booms does the rest.

[@ajwilson605]

@@bricefleckenstein9666 Bear over flights twice a day for about 3 weeks. I was on a Knox class frigate....."plane guarding" the Ranger. Decent cruise tho....... Subic was so nice before Pinatubo went off......

[@SirEpifire]

Shoutout to groundcrew bouncing the nose at 2:13 like the thing was a low rider. You're the OG.

[@michaelgranger7113]

I'm amazed at the detail given in this video. It's just a shame that no good recording exists.

[@JoseJimenez-sh1yi]

Can you imagine if the USAAF use this thing in Vietnam as a psychology war weapon ? .

[@rokilaiyangtzer1134]

They could let it fly close to the ground to destroy the ear drums of everyone

[@carlosandleon]

Against their own troops probably.

[@masol3726]

Agent Orange was already traumatizing enough

[@carlosandleon]

@@masol3726 it's never enough

[@Fastbikkel]

2:30 i dont think ive ever seen this 4 plane launch being performed. Amazing.

[@thenationdecides7404]

Hey great video. One small point of disagreement. Your graph on efficiency of WW2 fixed pitch propeller, I pretty sure that graph would be for a variable pitch. That's a high efficiency over a very large speed range, whereas an actual fixed pitch propeller will work pretty well over about a 100kt range, far less than the Mach 0.7 your graph showed. Fixed pitch props are really only feasible on low HP and limited flight envelope aircraft. (I'm sure you are aware of all that though)

[@FutureSystem738]

I have heard of this aeroplane before, but knew little to nothing about it. Great stuff, thanks!

[@mahbaotan]

Back when I was in the air force, a Tupolev Tu-95 landed for refuel. I had never seen nor heard about this plane before and to me it was the loudest prop plane I ever heard, pretty much sounded like a jet engine if you don't see it. I guess there is always someone louder :p

[@Carmodsinthehood]

Well made video! Informative short tangents to explain things, excellent animations, and good free body diagrams. Thanks for making

[@pithyginger6371]

Lowkey, thunderscreech is one of my favorite planes of all time

[@DanielESmith-iz7lx]

I saw FS-059 at the Air Force Museum near Dayton Ohio. I really like your animation of a like new air craft. The real one looks like it has been through well, flight testing. Also your explanation of the aerodynamics is enlightening. Thanks.

[@matthewcuratolo3719]

Reminds me of a comment by a test pilot concerning a different plane. "Entering the cockpit is extremely difficult. It should have been made impossible".

[@user-bw6jg4ej2m]

Small correction for 5:55: a symmetrical airfoil like shown won't produce any lift at 0 angle of attack. So the lift vector should only appear after you introduce angle of attack, but your demonstration suggests otherwise.

[@AlibifortheAfterlife]

“Recordings give us this fairly standard droning noise” Me, who lives directly under the glide slope of an airport that military aircraft often land at: “Dear god, it sounds like two portals to hell have opened on each of my eardrums”

[@mattmullett9521]

Yeah, it doesn't sound standard at all.

[@Zachthesloth]

The XF-91 derp-mobile in the background?! I can't wait!

[@tz8785]

5:59 I don't think such a symmetric shape at zero angle of attack generates any lift.

[@Bomber848480015]

You guys do a great job. I subscribe to both this channel and Nebula. Thank you keep up the good work.

[@woody_you_want]

I heard will Neff tell this story and couldnt find a legit channel that covered it. So glad you did!

[@cluerip]

For the planes at 8:50 My guesses at identification: B-25, possibly the TBF Avenger, F4U Corsair, and P-51 Mustang I'm confident about all but the TBF. The H tail of the B-25 gives it away and the F4U and P-51 are too iconic to not place.

[@riogrande163]

Maybe the tbf is actually an sbd dauntless?

[@vitsalava1251]

You are right, it's a TBF, the SBD has more dihedral, and more importantly SBD is a low-wing. This here is a mid-wing, so probably TBF. Also it's quite big and has square wingtips.

[@ELIGG15]

Yea I can see p51 and b25 and Corsair but I don't know what the plane is next to b25

[@lewiskemp5893]

Youre right

[@carlospineda5507]

12:47 “these drive shafts turn at an rpm of 14,200” F1 drivers: First time?

[@whyjnot420]

Given that the engines of this plane are outright tiny in comparison to modern ones as well as the size of the plane as a whole being miniature in comparison to the big ones around today, it really is amazing that it still rates as the loudest ever. Sure, it makes sense _why_ it was, but it is still amazing.

[@2552legoboy]

Sound has been one of the main reasons military and commercial aircraft aren’t allowed to go faster

[@jordanwilliams2557]

13:12 why didn’t they use a contra rotating prop design like the A2d-1 to counter the torque?

[@chairpara]

Alternative title to gain more traction on this amazing and interesting video: “Why Did this Plane Make its Ground Crew SICK? (The Insane Engineering of the Thunderscreech)”