This bomber has JETS AND PROPELLERS to reach 900km/h!

This bomber has JETS AND PROPELLERS to reach 900km/h! | Flyout

Рет қаралды 12,923

9 ай бұрын

This is the perfect B25, I just know it. What could possibly even be the downside with this? lol
_________________________________________________________
Patreon link ;- / patchbits
Flyout Discord : discord.com/invite/flyout
Link to my discord ;- / discord
_______________________________________________________________
Outro song ; • TROLDHAUGEN - BMX Term...
LICENSES:
_______________________________________________________________
"Brittle Rille" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
And now tags for exposure :)
#flyout #building #aircraft #design #simulator #warthunder

Пікірлер: 81

@enclaveheavytrooper9258 9 ай бұрын

Average Pre-B52 US Bomber.

@subjectc7505 9 ай бұрын

Man i can't wait to play this, I have so many ideas of fighter jets and helicopters.

@pringles4728 8 ай бұрын

if it comes out

@DubT2224 8 ай бұрын

Trailmakers dude

@dnt_alert5806 7 ай бұрын

It releases today 🔥🔥

@bully056 9 ай бұрын

“This has never been done before” *B-36 Enters the chat*

@CallMeMark_ 9 ай бұрын

I think he means he doesn’t believe he’s seen someone make a video about it Edit: sorry he means splitting power from a jet engine to a prop engine. The Jet engines from the B-36 are separate from the prop engines. This as he explains uses 50% of the Jet engine to drive the props (like a turbo prop) and the other 50% using the turbine power as a jet engine which hasn’t really been done. Other aircraft have used the jet engines more as boosters than engines.

@jacplac97 9 ай бұрын

This almost sounds like a bastard child of motorjet and turboprop

@jamescarranza420 9 ай бұрын

You've essentially built two massive super-high bypass jet engines

@katyusha408 9 ай бұрын

This plane is really cool, thanks for taking my suggestion, it is quite fast though, especially for a 50s to 60s medium bomber, maybe make the engines a bit smaller or add some extra turrets, like one of the top of the fuselage, or some out the side like the B17

@CallMeMark_ 9 ай бұрын

I think he's just doing this build to get in the mindset of building a bomber since he hasn't yet.

@katyusha408 9 ай бұрын

Maybe

@agravemisunderstanding9668 9 ай бұрын

Side (open ones) turrets on a plane going 900km/h doesn't sound fun

@katyusha408 9 ай бұрын

This is why we need those racing seats found on cars with harnesses on them, heck maybe even cover the window with bulletproof glass, give the gunner level 5 body armor, and some invincibility juice as well! Safe and sound

@Momomaster25 9 ай бұрын

This thing is basically an XA2J Super Savage in terms of propulsion and looks. Jet engine thrust and Turboprop power at the same time. The XA2J also seems to have roughly the same role in reality. Medium bomber/attack.

@jackmurray1466 9 ай бұрын

XJB-25A "Drunk Mitch"

@LastGoatKnight 9 ай бұрын

This bomber's concept is reminds me of the Ryan FR Fireball except that in there the jet was only used as a quasi-booster. But I can imagine a newer variant which can combine the two like this one. With an extended driveshaft maybe it can use the propeller part as a turboprop-jet combo while the piston engine only active during take offs. Complicated? Yes. Have I heard worse? Way worse. Can it work? I mean, clutches exist to disengage the motor from the driveshaft Yes, I know that engines doesn't work like that but there are star-shaped engines and there are H-engines as well

@CallMeMark_ 9 ай бұрын

These engines are more based off the P4M Maritime Recon plane. It is interesting to see how many American planes experimented with this turning and burning engine scheme. It would be cool to see a more modern example somewhere

@themanformerlyknownascomme777 Ай бұрын

Someone else already mentioned this, but essentially you just created a Propfan. Funny enough, the Propfan as an idea/concept has actually been kicking around since the 1940s, and everytime gas prices shoot up they become a popular idea once again. Infact, there is one out there right now: the Antonov An-70 though it's transition from Prototype to production aircraft has been an incredibly challenging odyssey.

@joshstreet6819 9 ай бұрын

And here I thought the catapults on US Carriers in WW2 had at least one (maybe two) hydraulic catapults only used to help get heavy loaded planes off the deck.

@PatchBits 9 ай бұрын

I believe a few did, but not all carriers.

@CallMeMark_ 9 ай бұрын

No carriers in World War Two had catapults, they were big heavy and reserved for recon planes. It wasn’t until the BS 4 was equipped on the Ark Royal during a refit in the 50s, this is why the last 40’s was filled with prop aircraft with jet boosters and turbo props for STOL use like the Fireball and A2 savage

@invadegreece9281 9 ай бұрын

@@CallMeMark_that’s just wrong but ok

@joshstreet6819 9 ай бұрын

@@CallMeMark_ if you are talking about Steam Catapults then you're right but those didn't come from the Brits until around mid 50's to the US navy for trials. And the only carriers in the US navy by the start of the war that didn't have a hydraulic catapult (thanks to the London Naval treaty that closed the Washington treaties lop hole on putting so called experimental catapults on carriers) was the Yorktown class (that included the baby Yorktown Wasp) and the Enterprise (the last of the Yorktown's) had one put on before the wars end.

@ottaviobasques 9 ай бұрын

I think it depends. I think the Essex-class carriers had, and maybe the Implacable/Audacious. The Graf Zeppelin was supposed to have one too.

@pixynowwithevenmorebelkanb6965 9 ай бұрын

This reminds me of the pis- Peacemaker

@somerandofilipino6957 8 ай бұрын

Thats the most bomber-looking bomber I've ever seen. Wow.

@Mr.Scootini 4 ай бұрын

This channel and this game has got me all messed up. I’m staying up far too late and at work, all I can think about is my current “light weight fighter project” Starting off with an F5-like design and slowly tweaking things to make my own version of a YF-17 and YF-16. Right now my current project named LWF-001 is in its phase one testing. I want a highly maneuverable aircraft with easy control and gentile stall characteristics. All using no FCS.

@syborgcat3830 9 ай бұрын

did you just say "hewo"?

@TheAetherleaf 9 ай бұрын

I was just thinking that I wanted a new Patchbits video to watch and you uploaded this! Did you read my mind or something?

@atrumluminarium 8 ай бұрын

I mean, if it was turbofan (which is kind of what you're describing) instead of turboprop it's basically what the A-10 is

@smog-du9pv 7 ай бұрын

"what if the us developed the B-25 long past it's service life" So like the P-2 Neptune?

@DeadKarlisAlive 9 ай бұрын

This is cool! Great work!!

@themecoptera9258 7 ай бұрын

Carriers are one thing, and potentially a use case but honestly the bigger selling point would be take off from short rugged airfields on remote islands. In a hypothetical pacific war the ability to launch ASW patrols from austere airfields probably makes up for the reduced range somewhat. I could totally see these kinds of things stationed on some pacific island or a small Scandinavian base. With some modifications to allow for wing folding they might even fit in bunkers where they pose a pop up ASW threat that the enemy can’t easily deal with. After serving its time in the navy it might also be seconded to the coast guard where it would be an invaluable air search and rescue asset thanks to its good speed and ability to launch from basically any civilian runway (or even from a highway in a pinch).

@justified_wrath_21 9 ай бұрын

Wow we finally get some flyout content

@OldVector. 9 ай бұрын

I just saw this in the flyout discord nice

@Streaky100001 9 ай бұрын

In terms of weather this blended turboprop/turbojet idea has been done before..... ah...... well...... sort of? I guess it depends how far you're willing to stretch definitions. I mean, take a look at turbofans. They have a jet, which spins a fan, that moves air to provide thrust. While this isn't a propeller as such, it's the same basic principle, it's just been optimized for a different speed range. And as part of that they've enclosed it inside the engine nacelle, rather than have it exposed on the front. As far as blending it with providing thrust from the jet exhaust, well turbofans have bypass ratios, what this means is that for a turbofan, a proportion of the thrust is provided by the air being moved by the fan, around the outside of the engine core, and a proportion of the thrust is provided by the exhaust from the engine core, in the same way a turbojet develops all it's thrust. A higher bypass ratio means a large portion of the total thrust is provided by the fan moving air. In the modern day many aircraft, especially commercial airliners, favor high bypass ratio, with most of the thrust provided by the fan, as it turns out this is a much more fuel efficient way to develop thrust, however earlier turbofans had lower bypass ratios. I guess you could say that a lower bypass ratio turbofan is pretty close in terms of basic concept to what you have here, the difference being you're not ducting your bypass air.

@Streaky100001 9 ай бұрын

Apologies, I was a little ill and tired while making this comment and clearly not thinking at my sharpest, after further thought, and a bit of research to check facts, this concept literally has been done. Lookup propfans. It's exactly this. Propeller with jet exhaust. It never got all that far, but for a brief while it was very much considered that this technology would be the future, to the point CFM at one point announced they would be designing no further turbofan engines, as Propfans would takeover. If you look them up, you'll also find them referred to as Unducted fans (UDFs) as effectively what they are is a turbofan engine where the fan stage has been placed outside the nacelle, and re-optimized to operate there. There was a lot of work on these in the 70s and 80s, but they eventually fell out of favor, I think mainly because they created a lot of noise in the cabin, these were primarily being looked at for commercial airlines, as the big benefit is efficiency, which means lower cost, when you're an airline, that's everything, the military aren't quite so interested, so obviously cabin noise is kind of a big thing, for passenger comfort. I think there were other issues too, more complicated engines, so more of an engineering challenge, more maintenance from vibrations, etc etc. And, combined with falling fuel prices, making efficiency less of a driving force, they fell away, and companies stopped investing money researching and developing them. Aircraft did fly with them, experimentally, at the time, I think it was an MD-80 that flew around as the demonstrator for one. With all this said about how the concept was effectively abandoned, it has recently been creeping back in, with a number of the big names, such as Airbus, Boeing, and Rolls Royce, showing renewed interested in the propfan concept, so who knows, maybe it'll become common place.

@AdamBrzozowski 9 ай бұрын

You should try to make a 'heavy' bomber. Heavy in quotation marks because i dont think heavy would be suitable for this idea. The bomber should have at least 16 jet engines (B-52 on steroids) - afterburners optional - and a large payload capacity (once again, B-52 on steroids). It should also have gunners all around itself, including top, side, front, rear and maybe even the belly. I doubt it would take off of the runway with its ungodly weight, but if it does it would be quite menacing to see fly over!

@LastGoatKnight 9 ай бұрын

Heavy bombers as far as I know refers to those bombers which can carry very large payloads compared to their mass. For example, a 17 ton bomber which can carry 10 tons of ordnance. They differ from the frontline bombers in that way that they can't reach that far, at least that's how I imagine this maybe I'm wrong. In short, heavy bombers heavy in a sense that they carry a LOT of ordnance and can level an entire city in one bombing run while lacking in range and/or altitude of the frontline bombers

@AdamBrzozowski 9 ай бұрын

@@LastGoatKnight in a way, this would technically be a heavy bomber then. Since it would have 16 or more jets on its wings, it would most likely be taking fuel like a german drinking beer on oktoberfest. And due to its high payload capacity of what could be imagined as a superflat world generator, it could classify as a heavy bomber in a sense. I imagine this bomber would (try to) have enough fuel for a few hours in the sky.

@snarkymatt585 8 ай бұрын

It could be used as a torpedo bomber as well as the ASW and EW roles. Perhaps it could also be used as a carrier based in-flight refueler and COBD as well.

@disketa25 9 ай бұрын

It looks - and feels - like an exact replica of North American AJ-1 Savage (basically a propjet evolution on a B-25 concept for Navy). Did anyone other than me know that it was designed, adopted and mass produced back then?

@tavolo2969 9 ай бұрын

I’d like to give you a challenge, I hope u consider giving it a try. You are commissioned in 1947 to take a C-47 and turn it into a bomber that also can airdrop some airborne soldiers. This plane will also have the aid of 2 small turbojets so that it can carry more weapons, maybe even out of the plane. You can put .50 cals, bombs and rockets, do as u want!

@katqcentertainment8754 9 ай бұрын

This plane is giving me strong Madagascar 2 vibes

@Somebeanwhoexists 8 ай бұрын

Ksp music *mwah*

@twocontradictions 9 ай бұрын

Mixed power B-25 isnt real, it won't hurt you. Mixed power B-25:

@tmdosu 9 ай бұрын

Honestly this might be the first game that I will not wait for a 50% sale to buy.

@fabilie8178 9 ай бұрын

The problem with this plane isn't taking off from an aircraft carrier... BUT LANDING IT ON ONE

@MDPToaster 9 ай бұрын

I would love to see you try the flying pancake next time.

@VonMed 8 ай бұрын

B-3 Skylark [B for bomber, 3 for 3rd design i think, skylark because it looks like a bird]

@SpaceBattleshipYamato-ps2jc 2 ай бұрын

Now we need to name it

@Knot_Sean 9 ай бұрын

I drew up plans of a continuation of the P2V series of aircraft, I redesigned the whole wing sections, Engines are like 3,700HP with a huge turbine recovery system like the P4M’s/P2V’s(but larger) fitted with longer secondary engines on the wings. It’d be able to reach about mph:480 km/h:772, The jet can reach 1820kg/f at a cruising altitude of 2000m and the aircraft takes advantage of its horsepower advantage with either a 5 bladed propeller or if the operators choose it, a 4 blade contra-rotating prop for higher maintenance but increased efficiency, acceleration, no torque, etc. could handle a 77mm anti-ship/tank cannon. You could send a few these puppies out on a scout mission and they can attack with an automatic 77mm under the belly with the ammo in the bomb bay. MMmmmM, I’mma post it in your discord art channel :o But I called it “Seans ‘P2V-7FH’ Supertune“

@Knot_Sean 9 ай бұрын

I cannot also explain my love for the two mixed propulsion aircraft, They turned the Neptune into a gunship, I bet they could turn the P4M-1 into one, It was such a fine aircraft, Wish they made more, They were heavy babies, But they were faster, Had more bomb load, Had the range greater than any WWII bomber for something that came out only a few years after it.

@RLD_Media 5 ай бұрын

I still wish you would upload full length\live building videos. Not like livestream, but just not sped up/

@corneliusthegreat6794 9 ай бұрын

COOL

@CallMeMark_ 9 ай бұрын

BIG SCOOPAGE GANG 🗣️🗣️🗣️

@Nightshardyeet 9 ай бұрын

Reducing weight doesn't increase speed, it increases the tw/r. That makes it accelerate faster.

@TheLonghairedBomber 5 ай бұрын

Just a random question, can you exit earths atmosphere in flyout?

@ChaosDeere007 9 ай бұрын

How realistic are your props? I mean the actual part, not the planes. Do you have any idea how to do them right or even experience? Not meant in an agressive way, because I know nothing but they just look weird to me.

@PatchBits 9 ай бұрын

I don't know if they're realistic, but I believe the calculations for the propellers are fairly accurate, so it's somewhat safe to assume they'd at least "work" in real life.

@ChaosDeere007 9 ай бұрын

@@PatchBits About what I thought (think). I can't wait to try my best to make them good and not accept that you are right even of you are. Keep up the content, love it.

@Tacticaviator7 9 ай бұрын

Yeah the aspect ratio of the blades are really small aren't they.

@robrollheiser9033 9 ай бұрын

Any idea when this game will come out?

@Magnus_Caramelo_55 9 ай бұрын

Designation would be PBJ-1K I guess

@mrllamaton1873 9 ай бұрын

I'D BUY IT!

@aabumble9954 9 ай бұрын

Very good video. Why does it look like the English Electric Canberra but with different engines, nose and tail but still the same basic shape of the Canberra. EDIT: This comment was based on a quick look at the thumbnail.