The Real Life X-Wing Fighters: Sukhoi Shkval, Sikorsky X-Wing, & BAe Kingston P.1214

In this video, we talk about three different X-Wing aircraft. We talk first about some of my interest in Star Wars, my love for General Grevious, and the real world practicality of the X-Wing fighter, before then going into the first design from the Soviet Union: the Sukhoi Shkval, a four-wing tail sitter that strongly resembles the X-Wing seen in Star Wars. We talk about the strong interest in tail sitters from the 1950's to the 1970's, their potential benefits on aircraft carriers and the like, where they fell short, and how the Shkval attempted to remedy at least one of those shortcomings. We then look at the Sikorsky X-Wing, a government and DARPA-funded helicopter rotor/wing concept that became intertwined with the Sikorsky S-72, a testbed helicopter.
We then look at the final design, the British Aerospace Kingston P.1214, an experimental VTOL "tailless" forward and rear-swept wing fighter design. We look at earlier British attempts at making VTOL aircraft with the Hawker Siddeley Harrier and how the P.1214 came about from attempted improvements to the Harrier. We also look at why all three of these designs ended up failing, with only the Sikorsky X-Wing even making it to the prototype stage.

[@Big_Bantha]

I appreciate that you show the marines storming Hoth

[@firstcynic92]

If forward swept wings are bad, why did GI Joe use them in the Conquest fighter?

[@CounterClaws]

They were probably inspired by the X-29. GI Joe took a lot of inspiration from real world prototypes like the VAMP being based off the Lamborgini Cheetah. The Mauler is the HSTV-L, the Storm Eagle is the YF-23 and the Skystorm being based off concept art of the Sikorsky X-Wing.

[@user-lz1yb6qk3f]

They aren't bad. They just aren't better either.

[@bjlewis5431]

Ha! I remember owning the G.I Joe 'Conquest X-30' fighter..among others! That's bringing back some memories..and making me feel mighty old! 🤣

[@danielreed1859]

Whatever comes after NGAD will probably be close enough

[@jennerdalay4300]

The short answer could just be because it looked cool.

[@the_once-and-future_king.]

Gotta give props to my fellow Brits for designing both an X-wing AND its cousin, the Y-wing!

[@lonlipscomb813]

Maybe better explanation of "the big problem with forward swept wings is wing tip bending" is that a forward swept wing is aerodynamically OK until the plane pulls some gs. The increased lift bends the wing upward, which increases lift disproportionately at the tip. This increased lift pulls more gs, increasing the bending, etc. round and round risking ripping the wing off. One solution is an all carbon fiber wing, so rigid as to minimize bending.

[@SomeOrdinaryJanitor]

the P.1212 and P.1214 are some of my favorite designs and always thought they looked incredibly futuristic, even for being proposed in the '80s

[@cdgncgn]

80s arms race was full swing.

[@nadermansour7487]

8:27 is a great shot of a totally appropriate street scene!

[@RectalRooter]

Nymphos need love too

[@natethegreat7204]

Never knew about the Sukhoi Shkval. ^^ It's got the most retro sci-fi feel of all of these. Thanks for the enlightening video!

[@ronjon7942]

I drooled over the P.1214 as a kid in the early 80s. Pretty sure it was in a PopSci magazine article, and at least one ‘aircraft of the future’ book I had.

[@eddies6977]

Any of these designs would make interesting RC projects. The P.1214's quasi-lifting body air frame looks like an especially good candidate. We might get an idea of how they would have performed with the modern RC equipment available today.

[@davidreynolds3082]

Don't forget about the most famous one - Thunderbird 2.

[@samec88]

That shkval definitely gives off thunderbird 1 vibes

[@Tuberuser187]

Something to note, model Harrier kits where used a lot in the various background ship kit bashes in the Star Wars movies.

[@kilicm]

Love the cinemas at the background 08:30😂

[@patrickbureau1402]

Background image -- "Taxis to Hell - and Back - Into the Jaws of Death" photographed - June 6, 1944, by Robert F. Sargent, a chief photographer's mate in the United States Coast Guard.

[@BoraHorzaGobuchul]

The second design was used for the Sixth Day with Arnold :)

[@WildBillCox13]

Science fiction writer here. The X-Wing design is perfect for the two times an air or spacecraft wants to be stable, low and slow: take-off and landing. All that extra lift right when you need it. After take-off and initial climb to altitude you close the wings together for high performance flight. This solves a problem plane designers have been working on for a hundred years. How to get more wing area when needed and less wing area when preferred. Remember the Soviet telescoping wing fighter? Or the British biplane Hurries with the jettisonable wing? I wonder if anyone has built an X-wing type RC for testing the regime. A four jet fighter with incredible climb rate. As for fuel . . . it's fantasy: a little goes a long way when you're running on Antimatter. The only problem is the weapons. Those movie blasters are weeeak with weak sauce. A good short range starfighter needs a weapon suitable for justifying its existence and future funding. Gravity Window. Force Disruptor. Gauge Particle Suppression. Slim Whitman. "Slim Whitman? That's when I woke up."

[@kennethferland5579]

In the absesne of air or gravity, a rocket powered craft still needs to consider it's center of mass, it's actually the most important thing. The combined thrust from rockets must push in a strait line through the center of mass or else the vehicle will recive a torque and spin out of control. With 4 engines the X-wing can easily achive torque in any direction with differential thrust.

[@GerardMenvussa]

They should have tried spinning, it's a good trick. Jokes aside, I really wish we could see that Suhkoi tailsitter fly, such a cool concept :o

[@pavelskrylnikov9658]

Great video! Should we hope for a one on TIE Fighter?

[@richardmartin8998]

No. Just like the movie, it would be a death trap devoid of plot armour

[@clarencehopkins7832]

Excellent stuff bro

[@58fins]

I like the picture at 8 and a half minutes, with the adult theaters in the background! Hilarious titles on the movies! And, a really nice '71 Skylark four door hardtop! Great video about X-perimental aircraft!

[@wyattr7982]

Man I love your sense of humor

[@donaldwrissler9059]

Future nerds in space would more than likely try and replicate Star Wars elements. The very idea is dealt with in the 'Bobiverse' books by Dennis E Taylor. I've always loved the aesthetic of the P1212-16 series and the Rockwell XFV-12.

[@CrusaderSports250]

The "Arrnie" film the Sixth Day had a really smart helio plane where the rotor locked to become the wings, most probably wouldn't work but looked good, and that's all you need to want one😊.

[@Free-Bodge79]

Everydays a school day. ! Love this channel. 👍💛👊

[@user-hu2iw5qu3i]

08:20 - They were definitely screening some interesting movies back then, based on the signs visible... ;-)

[@jebise1126]

18:50 quite interesting. forward swept wing would change center of gravity too. possibly open new design options.

[@emaheiwa8174]

08:30 Nice movie titles 😂

[@benjaminepstein5856]

This video was a delight from beginning to end. Also General Grievous's starfighter is low-key the coolest ship in the prequels.

[@jacksavage7808]

Hey, those flying UFO Tic-Tacs got it right.

[@charlesseitz1591]

Dollars to doughnuts those are either American or Chinese tic-tacs and not alien.

[@Triggernlfrl]

@@charlesseitz1591 You will have a hard time when truth hits...

[@lab-testedllamba8554]

This video will make a fine addition to my collection

[@GrandmaterP]

centre of gravity or rather mass is important in space since it dictates the angular momentum you experience when forces apply (thrusters, or blast drops, a crane arm moving etc etc),

[@jimsvideos7201]

That P.1212 is officially a Hell of a Thing.

[@jimsvideos7201]

Also, I adore the fact that the Mars Attacks! script had "ack ack ack" as filler that they were going to replace later... and didn't, and then the voice actors just went with it.

[@ronaldbyrne3320]

Fascinating. 😊

[@sergeykoshelev4566]

Thanks for interesting material. Just one (nerdy) note though. Center of gravity is still very important in space.

[@Triggernlfrl]

Not as important as they want us to believe...

[@richardsweeney197]

In the movies, the X-wing was shown with the wings closed in atmospheric flight. The "X" of the deployed wings was usually in attack mode. It was more for giving a wider stance for the Laser turbo canons.

[@chaostheory6143]

Your argument regarding fuel capacity Is assuming they are using a fuel type we are familiar with. According to the lore, they are powered by a Novaldex O4-Z cryogenic power generator, Which is a power cell measuring only one cubic foot and capable of powering an entire colony for a month. Therefore, fuel weight and consumption Are relatively moot points When discussing the operability of an X-Wing in atmosphere. Also, the X-Wing is NOT jet powered, It is powered by four fusial thrust engines. Furthermore, in atmosphere the X wing, like all Star Wars craft, uses a Repulsorlift for flight, which is basically an anti-gravity technology.

[@jarink1]

I'd love to see a real-life version of the B-wing. Does Blohm und Voss still make aircraft? 😂

[@AlphaWhiskey_Haryo]

Sikorsky's X-Wing concept would've been look like Arnold Schwarzenegger's airplane in "Sixth Day" movie

[@keppscrossing]

The P.1214-3 was also known as the Flying Squirrel.

[@patrickcardon1643]

The Star Wars Xwing can close the 4 wings down to 2 thick ones so for atmosphere that should be sorted

[@mysterycrumble]

your logo is the best

[@ssgtmole8610]

The Sikorsky X-wing looks like something the International Rescue Thunderbirds would use. 😎

[@pencilpauli9442]

Still say that the Harrier had the best system of vectored thrust. I will die on this hill. I'm surprised that no one has had the rear nozzles at the rear. Imagine a F-35 but without the need for the forward down facing fan and the cloaca at the asre end

[@infusedj9498]

the f35b, yak38 and yak141 have what you describe yak38 has a pair harrier style nozzles the yak141 and f35b have a rotating rear exhaust with engine(s) in the front to keep the center of thrust near center of gravity

[@pencilpauli9442]

@@infusedj9498 "The yak141 and f35b have a rotating rear exhaust with engine(s) in the front to keep the center of thrust near center of gravity" Which is dead weight for the rest of the flight. That's why the Pegasus design is in principle superior. imho.

[@kitbag9033]

X-32 used vectored thrust nozzles at the c of g and small nozzles at the extremities for attitude control

[@ringring8938]

If is so superior, then why the British Government replaced it with the F-35 for their new aircraft carrier? Clearly a hill you died on isn't worth a salt.

[@mwmaxwgreen]

Now, if it was technically possible, something that could have helped the Sikorski design, in addition to carbon fiber composite contruction of the rotor wings(what else would they be referred to, seeing as they are tasked with both types of operation?) Would be to articulat the blades at roots, so the forward swept blades are swept back, because forward swept wings tend to bend upward with increase in speed. And it'd look impressive in flight with two pair of swept wings in tandem, and modellers would rejoice

[@myperspective5091]

It been a long since I saw that fighter jet concept in Popular Mechanics magazine.

[@Desrtfox71]

Space absolutely has gravity. Gravity exists everywhere. So yes, CG matters. It matters in relation to thruster placement as well as general balance issues for most motion. Incidentally, in orbit, objects experience "freefall" not zero-g. For example, the ISS experiences about 90% sealevel gravity.

[@briancavanagh7048]

The UK government decided to stop development of a supersonic Harrier replacement and invest in the VTOL version of the JSF. This became the F35B.

[@gryfandjane]

For what it's worth, the Ryan Vertijet also had a revolving set arrangement. You can see it in the photo that appears in the video.

[@onkelmicke9670]

The P1214 was an extremely cool design.

[@bitrage.]

Forward swept wings give you really good reverse maneuverability!!!

[@keppscrossing]

The X-Wing design is not tell heavy, but rather, is nose heavy, with the center of lift way behind the center of gravity. The only radio control versions that have been very successful have incorporated canards toward the front, increasing lift in the front, but they spoil the look.

[@davidjernigan8161]

The Sukoi looks like a cross between the Ryan vertijet and the Convair

[@RedXlV]

The Sukhoi design might be an X-wing, but that swiveling pilot's seat is more like Boba Fett's Slave One.

[@erictaylor5462]

An "X-Wing" fighter that actually makes sense is the Aurora Class Starfury in Babylon 5. It has 8 (4 thrusting forward and 4 thrusting backward) engines mounted in 4 booms in an X configuration. It was designed to operate exclusively in space and could not operate in an atmosphere at all. As such it did not fly like an aircraft, as is often seen in science fiction. The 8 engines would allow the craft to rotate around any axis allowing it to bring its guns to bare on any target in a 360 degree sphere around the ship. This was the fist sci-fi ship that gained NASA's attention as a real life design possibility. When NASA engineers contacted the producers of the show asking if they could see the designs for possible development they happily and eagerly agreed. So there may yet be an X-wing developed in the relatively near future. An an X-wing that would be designed to work in space. May the Force be with you, and Remember Byron, because I'll know if you forget.

[@LuoJun2]

Nothing in Star Wars would ever be operational in an atmosphere. As far as deep space, the Tai Fighter is probably the most practical design.

[@Lovidar]

You've provided an interesting review, and I'd like to add something from my own perspective. Most supersonic combat missiles in aviation have X-shaped wings, according to the so-called "duck" design. The Russian Lancet drone also has X-shaped wings. The creation of technology in "Star Wars" is a source of frustration for anyone with an interest in technical aesthetics. George Lucas and his team had great ideas, but they were not concerned in the least about how these ideas could be implemented technically. They were driven by the idea that the main goal was to create beautiful and unique images, regardless of how logical or feasible the designs were. They deliberately moved away from science fiction canons in favour of fairy tales and fantasy. Although the prequels (1-3) have their flaws, the technical aspects are depicted a little more thoughtfully in them.

[@seriousmaran9414]

The idea of tail sitters changed into SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket and similar designs. With rear facing cameras and automatic landing options they might be reconsidered for moon landers.

[@erictaylor5462]

The bi-planes of early aviation did not have 4 wings for extra lift, they had them for extra strength. Every aircraft design is a collection in compromise. In WW I fighters strength was more important that the increased speed afforded by monoplane designs. Even so, there were monoplane fighters in WW I. 4 of the top 20 fighters were monoplanes. The Fokker E.III, Blériot XI, Morane-Saulnier N, and Bristol M.1. Monoplane Scout were all monoplanes.

[@hadleymanmusic]

4:00 is practicle now because common quadcopter algos could handle the process. Hell you see falcon first stage comin back regular

[@LastGoatKnight]

I would really like to see a separate video about 'compound helicopters' as you refered to them. Honestly it's a neat concept but I never saw any good looking except the one you mentioned here. The Soviet cargo compound helicopter design with the retractable/idle spinning rotors are not that streamlined and looks far more worse (though it's a cargo craft so it wouldn't be that big of a problem and it was bigger)

[@stitch626aloha]

The X-Wing was based more on the Pogo, and that weird Naz-Party spinning wing rocket thing. Where the modern P1214 designs were truly successful was in GI JOE the animated series and comics...

[@AnimalsVehiclesAndMore]

Are you talking about the Focke-Wulf Triebflugel when you said "weird Naz-Party spinning wing rocket thing"?

[@stitch626aloha]

@@AnimalsVehiclesAndMoreyes... I think. The giant propeller with cockpit in middle with rokets on the end

[@CrusaderSports250]

​@@stitch626alohaand pray the wing bearings don't sieze or you will have problems 😊.

[@Hey_MikeZeroEcho22P]

OUTSTANDING!!! I have a Very Rare model, in 1/72 scale of the P.1214 forward-swept wing "X-wing"!!! If I May....I would LOVE to use some of your information about that plane, with Your permission, and Credit you with the information and possibly link my model posting to This link. I would TOTALLY give you credit for the information! ....and How come you never seen SW:ESB ( Empire Strikes Back )??!!

[@garryb374]

The Russian Lancet drone uses X shaped conventional wings. Gives extra lift with shorter wingspan wings.

[@Ushio01]

BAE Kingston P1212 needs stabilators and forward canards to make up for the wings clearly.

[@janxspirit6707]

As far I'm aware the Bristol BE100, thrust vectoring engine, designed for the P1154, was the first Engine to feature Plenum Chamber Burning (PCB). The P1154 was cancelled in the mid 60s and the technology went onto be tested by Rolls Royce when then purchased Bristol. The BE100 was about 30% bigger then the Pegasus, and would have (in theory) given the P1154 Mach1+ dash capability for a short period.

[@CrusaderSports250]

My friend worked for Bristol at the time and told of the time he and a fellow apprentice got "chased" out of a hanger where the engine was sitting being worked on, apparently a stern talking too was later given, there was a lot of interesting stuff going on at the time.

[@marcbrasse747]

Ah, but you are wrong about the range issue of the X-wing. Ever seen the Mr. Fusion kitchen appliance from Back To The Future? That thing would change everything! 😁

[@kiwidiesel]

You also need a flux capacitor 😂

[@marcbrasse747]

@@kiwidiesel X-wings can’t timetravel! Yet that is. Never underestimate those Disney goons and goonesses! 🤪

[@jonnyblade3234]

Battlefront 2 is great. Maul was my favorite from the prequels, love the Saber Staff

[@CubanWriter]

"The Majority of those Movies, people don't like" True enough, but it's notable that the movies are products of different generations, and in some cases entirely different filmmakers. Not unexpected that they would receive different receptions and be perceived to have different levels of quality by audiences that liked one or another but not the rest.

[@AbeDillon]

It took me decades to realize that the name for Tie fighters comes from their resemblance to bow ties.

[@nopenheimer]

Could the S-72 autorotate without blown air? I assume the air came from bleeds from the turbines, so loss of engine means loss of effective lift from the not-really-rotors-unless-they're-being-blown things. I prefer not adding new exciting failure modes.

[@neves5083]

You're not an movie guy so I'm going to inform you that after the sequels is totally normal to say you like the prequels lol, people started to actually appreciate it Also i llove your videos :D

[@chunkblaster]

18:38 you can't fool me that's just a Cybran Tech 3 Interceptor!

[@F-14D_Tomcat]

The s-72 did not have tiltrotors it had turbofans. Tiltrotors are seem on things like the osprey, but as far as i know were never put on the s-72

[@numberyellow]

If we end up ever making a space fighter, it's likely gonna end up looking like the Starfury from Babylon 5. It's THE most sensible, and well thought out design for a space fighter, i've ever seen. It's only drawback, is that it absolutely CANNOT operate in-atmosphere. And in case anyone's thinking of hitting me with "ackshually".. yes, i know, the Thunderbolt variant could operate in-atmosphere... but he was talking about a space fighter, and the Starfury is a pure space fighter.

[@tsmspace]

I disagree with you on one point. The designers of the x-wing weren't "ignoring reality to make it look cool" ,, they were trying to imagine reality all the way. There's always a debate on how energy might work in such a situation, but the fuselage had a fuel tank. G.L. (buddy G) would always say things like "he just wanted it to look cool", but he didn't make all of the concept art, that was all done by people thinking it through, to satisfy the sci-fi enthusiasts. And if you really want to break down the x-wing, you have to start with thrust nozzles that vector, and in that case, it's a highly capable craft. The boxy body would allow it to function like a spaceship even in atmosphere, as the turbulence generated would allow for it to easily break free of the aerodynamic boundary layers that would be created by the wings. Therefore it would have some benefits of the wings when desired, but still allow the pilot to break into a horizontal firing position even in atmosphere. Every part of the x-wing had a logical purpose behind its design, not one single detail was "f*ck it, it looks cool". Not one ... Single... part.

[@stevenclark2188]

I think you missed pusher-prop+canard planes like the XP-55 Ascender as maybe honorable mentions. Sure only Crimson Skies stuff goes full X-Wing, but the real ones at least get the balance right.

[@jebise1126]

12:53 way faster helicopter that can hover for longer time. i see big benefits here. i just dont know how expensive it wold be

[@antonseverchenko747]

Ukraine now uses a lot of actial x-wing air units, unmanned. With RPG-7 warhead attached, it has even quite similar proportions to Star Wars X-Wing, just smaller and with propellers :)

[@AbeDillon]

It seems way more elegant to swivel the cockpit than to redirect thrust like modern VTOL designs. It does seem a bit top-heavy and unstable though. I don't know if that would be such a big deal for modern blended-wing designs with their stout proportions. Hell, with modern heads-up displays (or drones for that matter) you migt not even have to swivel anything.

[@Micharus]

Tried to build an X-Wing in the program "Simple Planes". Could not get it to fly at all.

[@Rose_Butterfly98]

Grievous is my favourite character in Star Wars lol

[@3d1e00]

The closest I would say are the surface to air missiles that were being looked at in WW2 and after.

[@uingaeoc3905]

One error - the YAK VTOLs flew over a decade after the Harriers.

[@user-rp2nq1ev6x]

The X-Wing in Star Wars was only in X-Wing configuration while in attack mode.

[@RectalRooter]

That's called science. Why does the sukhoi shkval look like a MIG-25 ?

[@FriendChicken]

Bae Kingston has brothers. But BAE hasn't released the files yet for Winston, Trevor and Donovan

[@JeanLucCaptain]

i mean we have a REAL LIFE SIZED RX-78-2 Gundam now in a japan, it moves and everything! So real X-wing cannot be far right?

[@neoclassic09]

The x wing often entered atmospheres to dock at stations so aero did matter

[@konekillerking]

Your center of gravity joke made me sad. Even in space it’s important. Maybe you think of it as the center of inertia. But, still, it has feelings. 😢

[@cen7ury]

I'm pretty sure we essentially already have star wars style x-wimgs, and biplanes are anything but "high speed".

[@dallesamllhals9161]

Well, the times of "dogfighting" were gone 80+ years ago...

[@cen7ury]

@@dallesamllhals9161 Dogfighting was done and dusted in or before 1944? Is that why they needed to retrofit the F4 Phantom with a gun pod in Vietnam?

[@dallesamllhals9161]

@@cen7ury Nein kind! I'm talking for REAL! Like W. Voss(DR.I) vs J. McCudden + a lot more (SE.5a = already TO fast!)

[@cen7ury]

@@dallesamllhals9161 Well, if you want to get really technical, no aerial "dogfight" has ever involved even a single dog, so really it was over before it ever got off the ground...

[@BoraHorzaGobuchul]

Generally, all of Star Wars craft are designed to look cool, and nothing else. A normal space fighter has to obey the laws of physics, so a design at least like a hammerhead from space above and beyond (though it still looks too much like a conventional airplane) is more adequate.

[@womble321]

In the UK it's St ol. St as in station. Ol as in old

[@barrybend7189]

So Thunderbird 1?

[@CrusaderSports250]

TB1 was a rocket with swept back and retractable wings, the big green bird TB2 had the forward swept wings and was way better.

[@anticarrrot]

Nearest you can get to a military successful X Wing aircraft woudl be the bi planes of WWI, even if the 4 wings aren't positioned to form an X. And we did stop using those for a reason... Meanwhile though, X or cruciform control surfaces are very popular in missiles, and becoming popular in large submarines.

[@YARCHLRL]

Sikorsky X-Wing flew multiple times both as helo and fixed wing. There are multiple videos of both lol.

[@malcolmcarter1726]

Nice to see a picture of the Hunting/ Percival P.126. The blown flap testbed, built I think to explore its abilities before the system was used in the TSR 2. Like I said, I think. But imagine what a full sized prototype of the Sukhoi Shush (it's waking up) Shkvval (?) blasting across the skies to the sound of triumphant soviet Motherland loving commie music Piercing Giant red stars and hammer and sickle banners.....just before IT pierces the hard ground of the frozen steppes. I cant imagine that it would have had much of a dogfighting or even turning ability, but ?....Oh well. Like all the other tail sitter VTOL designs one doesn't exactly see to many thrilling airshow crowds as it takes off from a semi trailer. I spose some did fly and actually achieved full transition from vertical to horizontal flight which in itself is fairly remarkable. Not so much for the design of the aircraft but more for the pilots that had huge enough nuts to fly rhe damned things and get them to work. For me it's the little bat like Ryan X-13 Vertijet and its take off and recovery system. The Lockheed Salmon (I forget it's designation...XV12 or somefink.) Looks like a huge firework, and the Convair Pogo looks like it worked pretty darned well but just think what it must have been like trying to land one and having to look over your shoulder as if you were reversing your Honds Civic into the drive! As per usual a brilliant prog. I always learn something new when I watch your show. Thank you. PEACE.

[@Iowa599]

Center of gravity would still be important in space because it turned.

[@steveshoemaker6347]

Thanks you.....Old F-4 2 Shoe🇺🇸

[@90lancaster]

The X-wing would only deploy it's S-foils once entering combat normal atmospheric flight would be done with the wings shut. There is a concept inherent in the Disney X-wing that does exist in some real planes which is how the engines are mounted in a strange over lap design.. There are a few planes with weird engine mounts a bit like that the whole two engines in one nacelle thing. which often causes horrid over heating (thus the Manchester becomes the Lancaster).

[@CrusaderSports250]

The Heinkle 177 would be a better example, with both engines each side linked to one propeller, in an attempt to reduce drag, engine overheating was a common problem. Contra rotating propellers would have been a better solution, in my opinion, with each engine powering just one propeller.

[@65gtotrips]

Yea but (and I’m not a Star Wars guy either) those were nuclear powered or something so they didn’t carry liquid fuel.