This is filled with inaccuracies. First you make a statement about the xp55 being stable. It was never stable. You did change it later in the video. You then made a backward statement saying the experimental engine wasn't used because of the Allison v1710. No, the experimental engine wasn't used because it never lived up to expectations. Also, the P39 airacobra And P38 lightning both had tricycle landing gear before the xp55 was ever built. You need to be more factual and stop with the clickbait titles. This is a distortion of history. Stop Doing THIS.
Have you ever noticed that the creators never respond to statements like yours? They have no ethics whatsoever. BS like this is what YT needs to be shutting down. But, thanks for setting the record straight.
You forgot two pioneering designs, the Douglas DB-7 Boston and North American NA-40 Mitchell both these fitted with a tricycle undercarriage. Without computerised flight controls the XP-55 was a recipe for disaster , the stalky undercarriage made it ill suited to rough dirt or pierced steel planking strips. As for Curtiss P-40, their' F' model with a Packard Merlin 28 clocked up 376 miles per hour. In the desert air war the 'F' model P-40 was the only fighter able to take on the BF 109 F and Macchi C202 Folgore on roughly equal terms, until Mark 8-9 Spitfires arrived .
Well that's a clickbait title. Nothing would have stopped the advent of the jet... just taking far longer for jets to become established. Nothing stimulates innovation like war.
From Wikipedia The first jet, Heinkel HE 178, flew on August 27, 1939. The XP55 first flew on July 19, 1943 The United States Army Air Corps proposal R-40C issued on 27 November 1939 for aircraft with improved performance, armament, and pilot visibility over existing fighters; it specifically allowed for unconventional aircraft designs. In June 1940, the Curtiss-Wright company received an Army contract for preliminary engineering data and a powered wind tunnel model.
It wasn't even that nothing was stopping the jet, but also both the Germans and the British flew the fucking things before the US even got its hand off its cock. NO aircraft "almost caused jets to never happen"! Let alone the failure depicted in the video.
um Even Nazi Germany thought it was a better idea to make a fighter with two jet engines, low-bypass non-turbofan non-afterburning non-thrustvectoring non-ramjet jet engines no less, rather than two piston engines each driving a single prop (which by the way, the Nazis did actually make). It's not even a turboprop (which the British Air Ministry tried to make instead of the pure-jet Glouster Meteor)! It's not even a counter-rotating prop (which the British did make after developing the Glouster Meteor JET)!!!! After WW2 the Soviets tried every conceivable form of prop and jet fighter before settling on JETS. The US had prop planes, designed and built in WW2, that flew in combat into the sixties while developing an entire series of supersonic jets capable of delivering nuclear weapons. Then there was the U2, which had an 80k agl ceiling, and the SR-71, which ALSO had an 80k agl ceiling along with a top speed above Mach 3.5, that literally outran and outclimbed the Mig-25...which was designed to shoot-down the SR-71. Tell me again, which prop plane with a tip-speed above the speed of sound was going to stop the world from developing and deploying jets?!? Definitely not ANY US-designed plane. Forget about it! There's absolutely NOTHING about this plane that "almost caused jets to not happen". What a load of complete bullshit.
"There should be a penalty." - There is... I just removed the channel from recommendations permanently. Check the three dots on the right of the rec list videos.
I got to see the XP-55 and XP-56 in the annex and restoration hangar at the Museum of the USAF at Wright Patterson AFB about 1980. I was in Jr. ROTC in high-school at the time. They had a Boeing P-12 in the resto hangar that the staff was building. Fuselage was built with the lower wing mounted, but the upper wing was on a build table with no skin on it. Not sure if it is still there. Back then the XB-70 was parked outside in front of the main hangar.
I realize the title and premise are click/"engagement" bait, but since I'm already here I'll point out the obvious and what others have likely said - jets already existed by the time the Ascender came along. Never mind non-US aircraft, for a USAAF jet that was already flying before the Ascender got off the ground, see the tricycled geared P-59 Airacomet. You can't "almost cause" something not to happen that is already happening. It was widely recognized in late '30s and early '40s that prop driven/piston aircraft were near the end of their development and performance range, but jet/turbine technology was at the beginning. One was the future, the other the past.
And then in 1974, Burt Rutan built the first of several very successful canard, swept wing, pusher propeller, tri-cycle gear aircraft. The Vari-eze and the Long-eze were two extremely successful kits built by many experimental aircraft builders. Unlike aircraft kits of today, these are mostly built from plans with a very few manufactured parts. Several other canard designs copied much of Burt Rutan's designs and also became successful. These aircraft are known for being almost impossible to stall and are very efficient, yielding great speed on mediocre power levels.
Rutan's designs use a different canard design. His planes were designed to be 'stall-proof' by forcing the canard to stall before the main wing. The plane then mushed downwards and the canard started flying again. THis was not the case with the P-55.
@@leifvejby8023 well they keep emphasizing how "innovative" and "unique" it is when in reality others were developing the same concept at the same time.
Anyone else notice that the wreck footage of the first prototype shows the propellor still attached to the engine? That should have jettisoned before the pilot jumped out.
The design features were so unprecedented you had to go back to the Wright 1903 Flier for something comparable. Elevators in front- check. Engine behind pilot with pusher props- check. This was Curtis Wright going back to its roots. Don't make gee-whiz claims you haven't researched.
If you read the WW2 reports on the XP-55 Ascender you will find out is had problems. It was designed for a engine that didn't happen., it had evil flight characteristic stalling being the worse. It top speed with available engines was only about 390 mph. As with so many of these piston WW2 prototypes existing planes, P51. F4U, F6F. P47 were much better.
Air to Air refueling On August 27, 1923, the crew managed to keep the receiver aircraft in the air for 37 hours and 15 minutes with five refueling maneuvers. The US Army aviation group continued to work on the possibilities of aerial refueling. In 1928 she planned to set a sustained flight record. At the Middletown base in Pennsylvania, the Fokker C-2 with serial number 28-120 was converted into a receiver aircraft with additional fuselage tanks and receiver equipment. Unfortunately, this technology was almost completely forgotten by the Allies during World War II, even though they had a huge problem with the range of the fighters over Europe and Southeast Asia until the arrival of the Mustang. This plane would have been ideal as a long-term escort fighter at the time. Technology is only as good if it is used correctly and that is still the case today.
The primary thing wrong with the Ass Ender was that it was designed and built by Curtiss. The second thing wrong was it never got the engine or the power it was designed for. Curtiss in the early to mid 1940s was by no means a cutting edge aircraft manufacturer. Now if, a very big if, Curtiss could have had this rebuilt to take one of the same turbo jets the P-80 did. Plus straighten out the aerodynamics issues.
Canards can be stable, if the foreplane is more heavily loaded for its area than the wing - but a moment's thought will show that this is inefficient - for a start, it precludes the use of wing flaps. So it's no surprise that the Ascender had miserable performance As an aero engineering student long ago, I built a wind-tunnel model of a canard design for the equivalent of a Beech King Air. What it showed was that (a) the longitudinal stability went to Hell when the tip vortices shed by the canard interfered with the wing; and (b) the centre of gravity location necessary for the thing to be flyable at all, was in a location roughly mid-way between the foreplane and the wing - so there would have been nowhere convenient to store the fuel (because the fuel needs to be located at or very close to the centre of gravity). Even if the stability issue could be overcome, this made the layout totally impractical. That is why the Piaggio Avanti is a three-surface aircraft, not a two-surface aircraft. So the garbage accompanying this video is just that - garbage. Foreplanes can be used on supersonic jets, because they become seriously nose-heavy at supersonic speed.
Wow! And all this time I’ve been uninformed about the whole canard thing, I thought Rutan’s EZ planes were the first to use a pusher with a large rear wing and a small canard up front. Silly me!
So did much earlier aircraft, like the circa 1910 - 1912 Curtis biplanes. The Curtis Model E (1912) could be equipped with floats or tricycle landing gear.
If the Curtiss-Wright XP-55 Ascender made it into service in sufficient numbers in the Pacific & if Japan had managed to get their own Kyushu J7W Shinden into service in sufficient numbers in time, I'd bet there'd be a whole LOT of "friendly fire" incidents as both aircraft looked alike at a distance!
False. Aircraft ICE was at its apex in 1945. Props limit speed and complexity of turbos, 1&2 stage superchargers, oil coolers, make the jet engine much simpler.
Imagine that the first successful aircraft engine could have been a turbine, as ICE engines took half a century to develop to the point their power-to-weight ratio allowed flight. Liquid fuel powered turbines to replace the steam engine's boilers and oil/coal/wood fuel made this possible.
At about 3:40: "...beyong the 500 miles per hour." "The"?? I'll give you a clue, fellas: normal people edit stuff, correct our errors before we publish to the public out there.
0:39 For reference, the WRIGHT brothers first powered aircraft was a canard - over 40 years BEFORE the XP-55. Not to mention many other WRONG CLAIMS later in this video. Do you bother FACT CHECKING your claims ever?
The ME 262 jet was not "the first powered aircraft". It was, however, the first, mass produced, and used in war, jet powered, airplane. How about editing the commentary on these things before publishing them. It might improve your credibility. I think this Ascender had too much sweep to its wings, for a prop driven, not fast enough, plain. Thus the stall problems, and others. I don't think front, Kinard control surfaces ever worked out very well, and rudders on the wingtips made for, not an intuitive, for pilots, design, at best. Maybe dangerous, at worst. I did enjoy this video, aside from the slight inaccuracy mentioned.
And, I still Wonder; 'What If' it had gotten a Jet Engine installed? But, that's like asking "If" Dick Rutan could've been involved 3 decades B4 he was Born...
0:00 _"In the heat of World War 2, America's quest for arial supremacy lu-gineering feat ever attempted."_ At least the opening sentence gives a clear glimpse of the quality of the video, and the channel.
Wow talk about clickbait! BTW, in the beginning you showed pictures of different aircraft and then named them. The third aircraft you said was the P-51. It ain't. The picture showed the P-47 Thunderbolt. AKA the 7-ton milk bottle.
Total bollocks! America were so far behind in terms of aviation that the Germans and the Brits who who both already had a flying jet before the XP-55 even left the drawing board.
America had a jet design in 1939 Lockheed L-133. but because Europe needed planes now, the war department and brits and French wanted working conventional planes and war department wanted unproven jet engines put on the back burner and concentrate on piston engines. so we got the p-80 in theater just as the war ended so theirs that.
so far behind? p-51,f4u corsair, p-38, p-47, f-6f b-17,b-24,b-25,b-26 yeah way behind! plus supply a bunch of ungratefull countries with band-aids beans and bullets
@@robertkerr4199 Not mate just history. America followed an isolationist policy driven by the First War, Great Depression, Wall Street Crash etc and stopped looking outwards for almost two decades. The US government chose not invest in modern tech when the Brits and Germans were gearing up for an arms race. The attitude was their problems are not ours so they ignored the rise of fascism in Italy and then Germany. Oddly for very different reasons the same thing has happened again in space with the stagnation of NASA for a few years following the decommissioning of the shuttle and the loss of corporate know-how that is the cause of the subsequent cockup they have made of getting SLS.flying.
@@robertkerr4199no, we used British Whittle engines. Aerospace engineering was way ahead in both Germany and Britain. The concept of the swept wing was German and both Britain and Germany were several years ahead in engine tech. Even the P51 was just a low altitude machine until the Brits put a rolls Merlin in it. I'm an American but history is history and it doesn't always around the U.S.
If the design specification stipulated all-around vision, why was it not given a glass bubble canopy? Naming an aircraft “Ascender” is pretty lame. Like naming a ship the “Floater” or a car the “Roller”.
Impressive design but the Nazi's had the Komet which was very similar in airframe design; and rocket powered pressing close to the sound barrier over 600 mph. They had a longer duration model in the works at the end of the war. Me 263.
This entire video is total nonsense. The XP-55 Ascender was so abysmal that it's official name, Ascender, was a play on words (A**Ender) . It flew horribly, and it hever had the slightest chance of entering production. It spent it's like as an experiment into it horrible flight characteristics. It was literally a flying curiosity.
Nice LOOKING plane. So what if it can't fly good. Looks awsome. The enemy, if they ever saw it, would simply freak out and run. "Feast your eyes on this beauty, you crummy krauts. Now leave, before I make you eat hot lead!" German pilot lands, and gives up, without a fight, crying the whole time. "Got in Himmle, vot a aeroplane! We lose now, yah?"
flaw in concept--something not explained: If the pilot bails out, he jettisons the propellor. Exactly WHERE do they think that propellor is going to go? It spends its life wanting to go FORWARD. Jettison it and it's going to chop up the fuselage (and pilot) as it goes away.
The Ascender could have been a world beater, besting anything in tha air during WW2. It, like many other promising planes, was killed by the crappy, underpowered Allisons they were tested with. The P51 would have failed similarly without a switch to the Merlin. Too bad this didn't get one, too.
"In test flights the XP-55 achieved 390 mph at 19,300 feet but there were engine cooling problems.[2] In terms of overall performance, testing of the XP-55 revealed it to be inferior to conventional fighter aircraft.[4][7][12] In addition, by the end of 1944, German and British jet-powered fighters were fully operational, and the Lockheed XP-80 was about to commence operational trials with USAAF units in Italy. Development of completely new piston-engine fighter designs was regarded as redundant; further development of such aircraft was terminated, including the XP-55. " This was a poorly done experimental aircraft...it NEVER got anywhere.
How come 1 takes about the Japanese version of this aircraft that was captured after Japan's surrender, from what I understand it was faster than a m/e 262 but with propeller.
"The Me two hundred sixty two!" - ughhh, Americanisms! Boeing seven hundred thirty seven? Boeing seven hundred seven? Nice aircraft though, shame it had a few problems with the design.
Why is it I have a photograph from after Japan surrendered to the US Forces of this very craft only it has Japanese markings on it with the makers being Japanese and not Americans humn??? This craft was captured by the Americans before they could even send it out!!!
Jets were inevitable. The physics of aero thrust was movement of air by propellor blades turned by internal combustion engines. Power was enhanced by compressing the intake air with a engine powered blower or a turbo blower powered by exhaust gas. The jet engine power was external combustion compressing the intake air and burning fuel in a chamber to make thrust with hot gas. Later jets went to bypass air propulsion using a propellor in parallel with the gas jet thrust. Other versions used the jet engine to power a geared down propellor.
Looks like the canard has a symmetrical airfoil. And the wing airfoils usually have a camber. Then it cannot work, then the canard, while increasing agility, is NOT helping stall characteristics as it could/should The canard needs MORE camber than the wing. Then with rising angle of attack the canard stalls BEFORE the main wing. As the canard is in the front, FORWARD of the center of gravity, the nose drops, preventinng a stall of the wing, The airflow at the canard reattaches with less angle of attack, and the plane is safe. Ideally you can pull full elevator, and all that happens is that the plane gets into a stable sink with high angle of attack, that can be stopped instantly with reducing elevator. I had a canard RC model that did exactly that, worked great. When you have your elevator at the tail, it is exactly the other way around, Then the elevator must not stall first. Would that happen, the tail would drop even more, increase the angle of attack and the stall would be way more violent. With a non-stalling elevator, the lift of the elevator "pushes" the tail up, so tha tthe airflow on the main wing reattaches. .
After those dammed hadron accelerators came into service, shit like this began to appear RE-WRITING history, like a yankee turboprop planes as something very normal (so normal, soooo normal that they were never used), like old footage with guys using cell phones, like subway stations in Moscow with pictures where people come out with laptops, like Kennedy's car with six people in it when there were always only four and shit like that, what will happen next, atomic submarines in the First World War, ballistic missiles used by Napoleon? Andy Warhol as yankee president? go to hell
This is filled with inaccuracies. First you make a statement about the xp55 being stable. It was never stable. You did change it later in the video. You then made a backward statement saying the experimental engine wasn't used because of the Allison v1710. No, the experimental engine wasn't used because it never lived up to expectations. Also, the P39 airacobra And P38 lightning both had tricycle landing gear before the xp55 was ever built. You need to be more factual and stop with the clickbait titles. This is a distortion of history. Stop Doing THIS.
Have you ever noticed that the creators never respond to statements like yours? They have no ethics whatsoever. BS like this is what YT needs to be shutting down. But, thanks for setting the record straight.
You forgot two pioneering designs, the Douglas DB-7 Boston and North American NA-40 Mitchell both these fitted with a tricycle undercarriage. Without computerised flight controls the XP-55 was a recipe for disaster , the stalky undercarriage made it ill suited to rough dirt or pierced steel planking strips. As for Curtiss P-40, their' F' model with a Packard Merlin 28 clocked up 376 miles per hour. In the desert air war the 'F' model P-40 was the only fighter able to take on the BF 109 F and Macchi C202 Folgore on roughly equal terms, until Mark 8-9 Spitfires arrived .
So true, that's not just on this site, it's a societal problem in these times... sad days ahead if this continues. cheers
Machines don't listen. You can only expect so much. It's not checked.
Thank you.
Well that's a clickbait title. Nothing would have stopped the advent of the jet... just taking far longer for jets to become established. Nothing stimulates innovation like war.
From Wikipedia
The first jet, Heinkel HE 178, flew on August 27, 1939.
The XP55 first flew on July 19, 1943
The United States Army Air Corps proposal R-40C issued on 27 November 1939 for aircraft with improved performance, armament, and pilot visibility over existing fighters; it specifically allowed for unconventional aircraft designs.
In June 1940, the Curtiss-Wright company received an Army contract for preliminary engineering data and a powered wind tunnel model.
It wasn't even that nothing was stopping the jet, but also both the Germans and the British flew the fucking things before the US even got its hand off its cock. NO aircraft "almost caused jets to never happen"! Let alone the failure depicted in the video.
Such bull dust. The Germans and Brits were much smarter than this
U I 9ò⁸ò⁰⁸⁷7⁸⁷⁷⁸⁸so so
um
Even Nazi Germany thought it was a better idea to make a fighter with two jet engines, low-bypass non-turbofan non-afterburning non-thrustvectoring non-ramjet jet engines no less, rather than two piston engines each driving a single prop (which by the way, the Nazis did actually make). It's not even a turboprop (which the British Air Ministry tried to make instead of the pure-jet Glouster Meteor)! It's not even a counter-rotating prop (which the British did make after developing the Glouster Meteor JET)!!!! After WW2 the Soviets tried every conceivable form of prop and jet fighter before settling on JETS.
The US had prop planes, designed and built in WW2, that flew in combat into the sixties while developing an entire series of supersonic jets capable of delivering nuclear weapons. Then there was the U2, which had an 80k agl ceiling, and the SR-71, which ALSO had an 80k agl ceiling along with a top speed above Mach 3.5, that literally outran and outclimbed the Mig-25...which was designed to shoot-down the SR-71. Tell me again, which prop plane with a tip-speed above the speed of sound was going to stop the world from developing and deploying jets?!? Definitely not ANY US-designed plane. Forget about it!
There's absolutely NOTHING about this plane that "almost caused jets to not happen". What a load of complete bullshit.
Clickbait and stale footage with a robot narrator. There should be a penalty.
"There should be a penalty." - There is... I just removed the channel from recommendations permanently. Check the three dots on the right of the rec list videos.
I got to see the XP-55 and XP-56 in the annex and restoration hangar at the Museum of the USAF at Wright Patterson AFB about 1980. I was in Jr. ROTC in high-school at the time. They had a Boeing P-12 in the resto hangar that the staff was building. Fuselage was built with the lower wing mounted, but the upper wing was on a build table with no skin on it. Not sure if it is still there.
Back then the XB-70 was parked outside in front of the main hangar.
I realize the title and premise are click/"engagement" bait, but since I'm already here I'll point out the obvious and what others have likely said - jets already existed by the time the Ascender came along. Never mind non-US aircraft, for a USAAF jet that was already flying before the Ascender got off the ground, see the tricycled geared P-59 Airacomet. You can't "almost cause" something not to happen that is already happening.
It was widely recognized in late '30s and early '40s that prop driven/piston aircraft were near the end of their development and performance range, but jet/turbine technology was at the beginning. One was the future, the other the past.
And then in 1974, Burt Rutan built the first of several very successful canard, swept wing, pusher propeller, tri-cycle gear aircraft. The Vari-eze and the Long-eze were two extremely successful kits built by many experimental aircraft builders. Unlike aircraft kits of today, these are mostly built from plans with a very few manufactured parts. Several other canard designs copied much of Burt Rutan's designs and also became successful. These aircraft are known for being almost impossible to stall and are very efficient, yielding great speed on mediocre power levels.
Rutan's designs use a different canard design. His planes were designed to be 'stall-proof' by forcing the canard to stall before the main wing. The plane then mushed downwards and the canard started flying again. THis was not the case with the P-55.
My buddy in Florida built one of those kits, I used to see and hear him every morning flying over my house like a little buzz bomb.
Why is the Japanese Shinden not mentioned.
It wasn't a Curtiss Ascender. Neither were Miles' canards, which could be the reason they weren't mentioned either.
@@leifvejby8023 well they keep emphasizing how "innovative" and "unique" it is when in reality others were developing the same concept at the same time.
@@montylc2001 exactly!
Actually there were several aircraft with tricycle landing gear.
The Bell P-39 Airacobra also had the engine behind the pilot and was seen in action in the USAAF in the SWPA in WW2
An exaggerated title used as clickbate is very annoying.
Anyone else notice that the wreck footage of the first prototype shows the propellor still attached to the engine? That should have jettisoned before the pilot jumped out.
XP-55 - "The Aircraft That Almost Caused Jets to Never Happen" In America Only.
The design features were so unprecedented you had to go back to the Wright 1903 Flier for something comparable. Elevators in front- check. Engine behind pilot with pusher props- check. This was Curtis Wright going back to its roots. Don't make gee-whiz claims you haven't researched.
Clickbait. Does not address what is in the title of the video.
If you read the WW2 reports on the XP-55 Ascender you will find out is had problems. It was designed for a engine that didn't happen., it had evil flight characteristic stalling being the worse. It top speed with available engines was only about 390 mph. As with so many of these piston WW2 prototypes existing planes, P51. F4U, F6F. P47 were much better.
I bet the engineers that developed this plane, we're rolling one the floor laughing when their 'easter egg' name was accepted. Ass ender.
Air to Air refueling
On August 27, 1923, the crew managed to keep the receiver aircraft in the air for 37 hours and 15 minutes with five refueling maneuvers. The US Army aviation group continued to work on the possibilities of aerial refueling. In 1928 she planned to set a sustained flight record. At the Middletown base in Pennsylvania, the Fokker C-2 with serial number 28-120 was converted into a receiver aircraft with additional fuselage tanks and receiver equipment.
Unfortunately, this technology was almost completely forgotten by the Allies during World War II, even though they had a huge problem with the range of the fighters over Europe and Southeast Asia until the arrival of the Mustang. This plane would have been ideal as a long-term escort fighter at the time. Technology is only as good if it is used correctly and that is still the case today.
The primary thing wrong with the Ass Ender was that it was designed and built by Curtiss. The second thing wrong was it never got the engine or the power it was designed for. Curtiss in the early to mid 1940s was by no means a cutting edge aircraft manufacturer. Now if, a very big if, Curtiss could have had this rebuilt to take one of the same turbo jets the P-80 did. Plus straighten out the aerodynamics issues.
Wonder what it would have gone like with a pair of internal turbojets.
Canards can be stable, if the foreplane is more heavily loaded for its area than the wing - but a moment's thought will show that this is inefficient - for a start, it precludes the use of wing flaps. So it's no surprise that the Ascender had miserable performance As an aero engineering student long ago, I built a wind-tunnel model of a canard design for the equivalent of a Beech King Air. What it showed was that (a) the longitudinal stability went to Hell when the tip vortices shed by the canard interfered with the wing; and (b) the centre of gravity location necessary for the thing to be flyable at all, was in a location roughly mid-way between the foreplane and the wing - so there would have been nowhere convenient to store the fuel (because the fuel needs to be located at or very close to the centre of gravity). Even if the stability issue could be overcome, this made the layout totally impractical. That is why the Piaggio Avanti is a three-surface aircraft, not a two-surface aircraft. So the garbage accompanying this video is just that - garbage. Foreplanes can be used on supersonic jets, because they become seriously nose-heavy at supersonic speed.
Nothing could have stopped jets to happen. The theoretical advantages of a jet over a prop with ICE are just too great.
Stupid title, assumes that mankind had no desire to advance past this point of aviation development!
This title is pure BS.
I would be very intrigued by the ascender it it was mated with a jet engine!
The only one surviving is in a museum in Kalamazoo Michigan
I don’t think that’s why they called it “assender” 5:50
Clickbait title .
Wow! And all this time I’ve been uninformed about the whole canard thing, I thought Rutan’s EZ planes were the first to use a pusher with a large rear wing and a small canard up front. Silly me!
P-38 had tricycle wheels, so did the B-25
B-24, A-26, and P-61 to name a couple of others.
So did much earlier aircraft, like the circa 1910 - 1912 Curtis biplanes. The Curtis Model E (1912) could be equipped with floats or tricycle landing gear.
If the Curtiss-Wright XP-55 Ascender made it into service in sufficient numbers in the Pacific & if Japan had managed to get their own Kyushu J7W Shinden into service in sufficient numbers in time, I'd bet there'd be a whole LOT of "friendly fire" incidents as both aircraft looked alike at a distance!
That's just simply untrue. Isn't there a YT rule that says that you can't post videos that are UTTER BULLSHIT?
@2:39 Is that Marshal Petain from France? What did the Vichy Government have to do with the advent of this craft? 🙄
If it was worthwhile the military would have ordered into production.
False. Aircraft ICE was at its apex in 1945. Props limit speed and complexity of turbos, 1&2 stage superchargers, oil coolers, make the jet engine much simpler.
Why was a goblin engine not tried to power this aircraft.
Don’t click bait me. You will never see me again. A simple “XP55” title would have gotten my attention.
Is this where Routan got the idea for the long ez?
Imagine that the first successful aircraft engine could have been a turbine, as ICE engines took half a century to develop to the point their power-to-weight ratio allowed flight. Liquid fuel powered turbines to replace the steam engine's boilers and oil/coal/wood fuel made this possible.
At about 3:40: "...beyong the 500 miles per hour." "The"??
I'll give you a clue, fellas: normal people edit stuff, correct our errors before we publish to the public out there.
0:39
For reference, the WRIGHT brothers first powered aircraft was a canard - over 40 years BEFORE the XP-55.
Not to mention many other WRONG CLAIMS later in this video.
Do you bother FACT CHECKING your claims ever?
The ME 262 jet was not "the first powered aircraft". It was, however, the first, mass produced, and used in war, jet powered, airplane. How about editing the commentary on these things before publishing them. It might improve your credibility. I think this Ascender had too much sweep to its wings, for a prop driven, not fast enough, plain. Thus the stall problems, and others. I don't think front, Kinard control surfaces ever worked out very well, and rudders on the wingtips made for, not an intuitive, for pilots, design, at best. Maybe dangerous, at worst. I did enjoy this video, aside from the slight inaccuracy mentioned.
And, I still Wonder; 'What If' it had gotten a Jet Engine installed? But, that's like asking "If" Dick Rutan could've been involved 3 decades B4 he was Born...
Oh, it would've been the 'Ares' , just a tad-bit earlier.... 4 Decades sooner!
0:00 _"In the heat of World War 2, America's quest for arial supremacy lu-gineering feat ever attempted."_
At least the opening sentence gives a clear glimpse of the quality of the video, and the channel.
“Weathercock”………I get that when I pee outside !
Rubbish. Only 3 were ever built and not until July 1943. JETS first flew 4 YEARS before this.
Wow talk about clickbait! BTW, in the beginning you showed pictures of different aircraft and then named them. The third aircraft you said was the P-51. It ain't. The picture showed the P-47 Thunderbolt. AKA the 7-ton milk bottle.
Total bollocks! America were so far behind in terms of aviation that the Germans and the Brits who who both already had a flying jet before the XP-55 even left the drawing board.
America had a jet design in 1939 Lockheed L-133. but because Europe needed planes now, the war department and brits and French wanted working conventional planes and war department wanted unproven jet engines put on the back burner and concentrate on piston engines. so we got the p-80 in theater just as the war ended so theirs that.
pretty sure America would've had the first jets if they didn't have to bail your asses out of the war.
so far behind? p-51,f4u corsair, p-38, p-47, f-6f b-17,b-24,b-25,b-26 yeah way behind! plus supply a bunch of ungratefull countries with band-aids beans and bullets
@@robertkerr4199 Not mate just history. America followed an isolationist policy driven by the First War, Great Depression, Wall Street Crash etc and stopped looking outwards for almost two decades. The US government chose not invest in modern tech when the Brits and Germans were gearing up for an arms race. The attitude was their problems are not ours so they ignored the rise of fascism in Italy and then Germany. Oddly for very different reasons the same thing has happened again in space with the stagnation of NASA for a few years following the decommissioning of the shuttle and the loss of corporate know-how that is the cause of the subsequent cockup they have made of getting SLS.flying.
@@robertkerr4199no, we used British Whittle engines. Aerospace engineering was way ahead in both Germany and Britain. The concept of the swept wing was German and both Britain and Germany were several years ahead in engine tech. Even the P51 was just a low altitude machine until the Brits put a rolls Merlin in it.
I'm an American but history is history and it doesn't always around the U.S.
If the design specification stipulated all-around vision, why was it not given a glass bubble canopy?
Naming an aircraft “Ascender” is pretty lame. Like naming a ship the “Floater” or a car the “Roller”.
It was known as the "Ass-Ender" to some...
Impressive design but the Nazi's had the Komet which was very similar in airframe design; and rocket powered pressing close to the sound barrier over 600 mph. They had a longer duration model in the works at the end of the war. Me 263.
This entire video is total nonsense. The XP-55 Ascender was so abysmal that it's official name, Ascender, was a play on words (A**Ender) . It flew horribly, and it hever had the slightest chance of entering production. It spent it's like as an experiment into it horrible flight characteristics. It was literally a flying curiosity.
Clickbait title for sure ---- but a very interesting story nevertheless...
What about the Dornier 335?
Nice LOOKING plane. So what if it can't fly good. Looks awsome. The enemy, if they ever saw it, would simply freak out and run.
"Feast your eyes on this beauty, you crummy krauts. Now leave, before I make you eat hot lead!"
German pilot lands, and gives up, without a fight, crying the whole time. "Got in Himmle, vot a aeroplane! We lose now, yah?"
Clickbait title and monster inaccuracies = good bye.
Removed from recommendations permanently.
Hey, I think it's safe o say, "We're gettin' sick & tired of BOT narrators!" That Wrecks an otherwise good subject.
What a waste of time.
Not true. Jet will always be faster.
flaw in concept--something not explained: If the pilot bails out, he jettisons the propellor. Exactly WHERE do they think that propellor is going to go? It spends its life wanting to go FORWARD. Jettison it and it's going to chop up the fuselage (and pilot) as it goes away.
🤣🤣😂😂 Total CLOWN compared to the Dornier 335 push/ pull twin engines going 500 mph.
I saw the one at the Dulles air museum in VA.
Looks nice, but didn't work as it should.
The Ascender could have been a world beater, besting anything in tha air during WW2. It, like many other promising planes, was killed by the crappy, underpowered Allisons they were tested with. The P51 would have failed similarly without a switch to the Merlin. Too bad this didn't get one, too.
You're either 12 years old, or learned all your aviation knowledge reading click-bait utube videos.
Misleading title, not appreciated.
Tails were too small. Shitty control...
Nonsense. Jets were already happening.
"In test flights the XP-55 achieved 390 mph at 19,300 feet but there were engine cooling problems.[2] In terms of overall performance, testing of the XP-55 revealed it to be inferior to conventional fighter aircraft.[4][7][12] In addition, by the end of 1944, German and British jet-powered fighters were fully operational, and the Lockheed XP-80 was about to commence operational trials with USAAF units in Italy. Development of completely new piston-engine fighter designs was regarded as redundant; further development of such aircraft was terminated, including the XP-55. " This was a poorly done experimental aircraft...it NEVER got anywhere.
The title is a wild boast
How come 1 takes about the Japanese version of this aircraft that was captured after Japan's surrender, from what I understand it was faster than a m/e 262 but with propeller.
Wildly inaccurate video also fails to mention the Japanese Shinden a contemporary WW2 pusher prop prototype.
"The Me two hundred sixty two!" - ughhh, Americanisms!
Boeing seven hundred thirty seven?
Boeing seven hundred seven?
Nice aircraft though, shame it had a few problems with the design.
Why is it I have a photograph from after Japan surrendered to the US Forces of this very craft only it has Japanese markings on it with the makers being Japanese and not Americans humn??? This craft was captured by the Americans before they could even send it out!!!
Video contains a bunch of false statements and inaccuracies. Video is often completely unrelated to the topic. (!) This is garbage.
Bury Rutan ring a bell in your memory?
What utter BS. TOTAL CLICK BAIT NONSENSE
I HATE SPELL CHECK!
Jets were inevitable. The physics of aero thrust was movement of air by propellor blades turned by internal combustion engines. Power was enhanced by compressing the intake air with a engine powered blower or a turbo blower powered by exhaust gas. The jet engine power was external combustion compressing the intake air and burning fuel in a chamber to make thrust with hot gas. Later jets went to bypass air propulsion using a propellor in parallel with the gas jet thrust. Other versions used the jet engine to power a geared down propellor.
Looks like the canard has a symmetrical airfoil. And the wing airfoils usually have a camber.
Then it cannot work, then the canard, while increasing agility, is NOT helping stall characteristics as it could/should
The canard needs MORE camber than the wing. Then with rising angle of attack the canard stalls BEFORE the main wing.
As the canard is in the front, FORWARD of the center of gravity, the nose drops, preventinng a stall of the wing, The airflow at the canard reattaches with less angle of attack, and the plane is safe.
Ideally you can pull full elevator, and all that happens is that the plane gets into a stable sink with high angle of attack, that can be stopped instantly with reducing elevator.
I had a canard RC model that did exactly that, worked great.
When you have your elevator at the tail, it is exactly the other way around, Then the elevator must not stall first.
Would that happen, the tail would drop even more, increase the angle of attack and the stall would be way more violent.
With a non-stalling elevator, the lift of the elevator "pushes" the tail up, so tha tthe airflow on the main wing reattaches.
.
More like a total flop
Where does this rubbish come from?.
Gosh - looks like the Donier twin engine…
After those dammed hadron accelerators came into service, shit like this began to appear RE-WRITING history, like a yankee turboprop planes as something very normal (so normal, soooo normal that they were never used), like old footage with guys using cell phones, like subway stations in Moscow with pictures where people come out with laptops, like Kennedy's car with six people in it when there were always only four and shit like that, what will happen next, atomic submarines in the First World War, ballistic missiles used by Napoleon? Andy Warhol as yankee president? go to hell