I thought it was well researched, good copy writing and the VO (voice over) was read totally professionally. He knew that the Grewman was now in a muzaum.
You guys are killing me. But yeah as the son of an English teacher I'm the one who's usually at risk of being called a grammar-Nazi. Still some things are just basic. Craft is both singular and plural and aircraft is a compound that uses it. I can't believe how many forget this. They've never been around aircraft evidently yet they want to tell us all about them. SMH
A friend of my father's worked at North American as one of the draftsmen who drew up the blueprints for what he called "the flying wing," according to the specs given him by the engineers. I remember accompanying my father for social visits and seeing photos of many different prototypes built by N.A. It seems the basic concept was good since it was reincarnated to a large degree in the B-2.
he states the spruce goose saw action after the war, if you think action is flying a few feet off the water for just a couple of seconds and never flying again then he's right.
the final iteration of the "flying pancake" was capable of 500mph flight, had 6 .50cal guns, and was only scrapped because the Navy decided to go for jet aircraft. The the design was Far from a failure and had extremely good flight characteristics.
The prop planes had a ceiling limit partly because the air became thinner at 10,000 feet and higher, so the Caproni design was to help increase the ceiling limit. It's how jet engines were developed.
Why are most of these YT vids voiced over by people who can barely speak correctly or pronounce words correctly? The guy voicing over this vid is speaking far too quickly and mispronouncing all over the place. It makes it tiresome to watch. Just slow down kids! And I realise that some of them are voiced over by voice simulators. I just click away from those ones.
I can't watch this.... I feel homicidal. I'm heartily sick of Top Five, Top Ten, Top Anything programs compiled with little or no research and narrated by adenoidal teenagers on helium trying to sound butch and windswept.
okay something's wrong with this guy number for clearly is not needle-nose designed whatsoever and a while ago he obviously denies flying saucers....... just saying
1,800 kg or 20 T (???) I assume it's an accidental mistake from narrating too quickly. 1,800 kg is a hair under 2 tons (3,960 lbs, or 1.98 US ton), or 1.8 metric tonnes for us Canadians. Definitely not 20 tons!
Weird... the Lockheed Martin logo and writing on the tri-hull blimp is backwards in the first photo, and then the right way in the second photo. The weird thing is that for the writing to be backwards like that, the blimp would have had to be inside-out!
Just stick them all on a US flag and claim the lot. A bit more of the usual. Aircrafts Sums for learners: 1800 kg = 1.8 Metric Tonnes 1800 kg = 1.98416 US Tons 1800 kg = 1.771572 Imperial Tons
A good list of experimental aircraft........some were dead ends.......but they all helped answer questions of flight!.....note:American designs tend to push a certain technology of the times!
Get your facts right on the BV-141 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_%26_Voss_BV_141). It was not produced primarily because of power issues, and by the time a bigger engine had been installed, the Fw 189 had been decided on.
Some people picture the spice goose being biult like a house,,,not so it was made of wood laminutes,think of bow limbs on recurve bows or laminated gunstocks made up of layers of wood semalure to plywood only in very thin layers maybe 32 layers to the inch very strong stuff and lighter than steel or aluminum!!!
The "Spruce Goose" was a GLIDER? I seem to recall that there were 8 ENGINES on the thing! There are SO MANY errors in this video that it is painful to watch the entire thing without giving up in disgust. Do some RESEARCH dammit!
IS THIS JUST ME OR ANYONE ELSE NOTICED THIS???? I am not entirely sure, but as far as the rest of this planet is concerned, 1000 kilograms=1 metric tone. So my question is which one is correct ? At 0:52 you claim that this particular aircraft can lift 1800 kilograms or 20 tonnes... Which one is it then? 1800 kilograms or 20 metric tonnes? Just to clarify this for you 20 metric tonnes = 20 000 kilograms... Did you skip some basic classes in school or something??
Its Canadian therefor Vee Zed 9. Couldn't be inspiration for flying saucer reports since 1) never got more than a few feet off ground; 2) was never anywhere near Area 51.
He speaks at the highest rate of bullshit per minute . Hoping that fast bullshit will do the job. That russian wingless contraption might be an Ekranoplan .
Wow! I don't think I've ever seen such a mixture of half true and just plain mistaken commentary. Your idea of what is strange is bizarre to say the least. You mixed pictures of the XB-35 and the XB-49 both flying wings but one prop and one jet engined. I personally watched Starship 1 take off from Mojave Airport (self styled "space port") and launch the first privately funded spaceship launch. That last thing, the Russian vehicle wasn't a true airplane, it was designed to fly in ground effect and not to fly over about 25 feet above the surface. The Russians built quite a few different models some capable of lifting hundreds of tons of materials. The so called "Spruce Goose" was in no way a glider. I have to wonder where you came up with that idea. Also it was never flown after that first foray by Howard Hughes. There's lots of other inaccuracies to numerous to remember.
HOW IS IT POSSIBLE to pack SO MANY GROSS ERRORS, mispronunciations and just plain UNTRUTHS into one short video?! Just in the 1st minute or so: - [1] Who told these guys that "the flying pancake... DIDN'T need a runway" (at 0:25)?! - [2] Also, it's good to know (at 0:49) that this aircraft is "supported by an aerodynamic lift." (Well, what aircraft ISN'T, Einstein?! =o ) - [3] (at 0:54) 1800 Kilograms is LESS than 2 tons! So, WHICH IS IT - 20 tons or less than 2?! - [4] at 1:09 - "sub-ORTibal"? How about sub-orbital? - [5] and SINCE WHEN was the Spruce Goose (at 1:49) a GLIDER ?! =o The MISinformation is simply astonishing! Yikes! =o ...had to just stop counting and enjoy the unfolding train wreck.
This is hopeless, full of ridiculous errors. You could have spent half an hour watching other videos right here on RUclips and corrected all of that, or done it in 5 minutes on Wikipedia. Eg. First the V173 was a small, low-powered (and very successful) proof of concept for the XF5U, you show pictures of both "aircraft" and talk about it as if the V173 would fly from carriers, and mix up the two aircraft's histories and pictures all over the place. The BV 141 wrecks found were not "probably due to failed flight testing", they flew very well and exceeded all requirements except max. power. This guy assumes because it looks funny it probably didn't work - you don't think the aircraft manufacturer maybe CHECKED if it flew before they spent a fortune in precious war resources building a bunch of them? Like the producers should have before releasing the video! Finding the wrecked planes in France is usually credited to the Germans not wanting to leave their new technology for the Allies - you made this video, you should have known that. 1800 kilos isn't nearly 20 tons it's almost TWO tons. The "Spruce Goose" (HK4 Hercules) was never a glider, what the hell? The first shot the video shows is a bunch of engines! It never *served* at all! It did one taxi run and barely lifeted off the water, just to prove it could. The whole thing is useless and it'd be better to replace the entire narrative with "yuk yuk, ain't that funny lookin'!" It'd be a lot more accurate! Just look stuff up, it takes no time!
leave him alone ......he is talkin' goood elglish, and maths may not be his strong point (e.g.1800kg = 20t) he may also be American so English is not his first language and he is stuck in the dark ages of the Imperial system.
The word "aircraft" is an irregular plural word. This means that it doesn't take an "s" to make the word plural.The word "aircraft" is supposed to be used for BOTH singular AND plural!!! That's why you use the term "aircraft carrier" to refer to a ship that carries 85 aircraft. Notice that nobody says "aircrafts carrier"? Notice that the spelling checker marks the word "aircrafts" as a mistake? The owner of this channel must have failed 7th grade English class to make such an easy mistake. I bet you he also says "mouses" instead of "mice" or "leafs" instead of "leaves" or "indexes" instead of "indices"...
You Show Planes with american flag which where Build by Germany (Blohm und Voss, Dornier) or other like italian... or why using always the US-Flag? better not talking about things where you habe no idea about...!
This guy has no idea what he's talking about.
exept little things its almost all true
ClearlyMLG play Guatemalan marimba music
Took the words out of my mouth loo
Agreed
I thought it was well researched, good copy writing and the VO (voice over) was read totally professionally. He knew that the Grewman was now in a muzaum.
1800kg or 20tonnes... what?
"Aircrafts" is not a word of the English language.
Curt Cannon and yet you wrote it in English?
Bubba Newbern hence the quotation marks there bubba .
kafferism Hilarious...forgot the question mark after pedantic.
You guys are killing me.
But yeah as the son of an English teacher I'm the one who's usually at risk of being called a grammar-Nazi. Still some things are just basic. Craft is both singular and plural and aircraft is a compound that uses it. I can't believe how many forget this. They've never been around aircraft evidently yet they want to tell us all about them. SMH
The plural of "Aircraft" is "Aircraft"'
Please don't ever do voice-overs ever EVER again.
the XB-35 was not dubbed the flying wing, it was a flying wing. The first flying wing was the Horton 229. Flying wings are just types of aircraft.
A friend of my father's worked at North American as one of the draftsmen who drew up the blueprints for what he called "the flying wing," according to the specs given him by the engineers. I remember accompanying my father for social visits and seeing photos of many different prototypes built by N.A. It seems the basic concept was good since it was reincarnated to a large degree in the B-2.
Actually the horton was not the first - there are flying wig designs dating back to the 20's.
Also the pictures of the flying wings are alternating XB-35 (propellers) and XB-49 (jet).
The Ho229 was not the first flying wing. The Russian Chyeranovskii BICh-3 first flew in 1926. In the US the Northrop N-1M flew in 1940.
he states the spruce goose saw action after the war, if you think action is flying a few feet off the water for just a couple of seconds and never flying again then he's right.
Aircrafts is not a word. Aircraft is its own plural. Hope this helps.
Aircrafts lol
Plural of "aircraft" is AIRCRAFT.
the final iteration of the "flying pancake" was capable of 500mph flight, had 6 .50cal guns, and was only scrapped because the Navy decided to go for jet aircraft. The the design was Far from a failure and had extremely good flight characteristics.
this kid is a dumbfuck who seem incapable of doing simple research
So much misinformation, did you research anything?
1800 kg = 1.8 T
20 T = 20.000 KG
i think you got the numbers messed up with number 16 or did i get somethin wrong?
I am writing in English so I use the for (.)
David Dou
Only on the West Side of the Pond, lad. In Europe, and the Commonwealth, they use the period for that separation.
TheHornedOne81 I stoped diskussing with people that can not talk in their own language.
David Dou that's not the point the video is wrong.
David Dou in Europe though you need to use period to separate 1.000 and comma for decimals. exactly like ratakaio did
many many incorrect "facts" here. otherwise nice pictures
The prop planes had a ceiling limit partly because the air became thinner at 10,000 feet and higher, so the Caproni design was to help increase the ceiling limit. It's how jet engines were developed.
Why are most of these YT vids voiced over by people who can barely speak correctly or pronounce words correctly? The guy voicing over this vid is speaking far too quickly and mispronouncing all over the place. It makes it tiresome to watch. Just slow down kids!
And I realise that some of them are voiced over by voice simulators. I just click away from those ones.
the horten IX is the real b2 predecessor..
6:50 Altar is NASA's version of MQ-9 Reaper, it is not a Predator. And 7:01, it is a MQ-1 Predator.
Before I watch this video I want to point out that the plural of aircraft is aircraft, not aircrafts.
1800kgs doesn't equal 20 tons
I can't watch this.... I feel homicidal. I'm heartily sick of Top Five, Top Ten, Top Anything programs compiled with little or no research and narrated by adenoidal teenagers on helium trying to sound butch and windswept.
LOL.
You clearly had no idea what you were talking about...
okay something's wrong with this guy number for clearly is not needle-nose designed whatsoever and a while ago he obviously denies flying saucers....... just saying
explain "clearly is not needle-nose designed whatsoever"
The lack of a needle nose?
MAXTHUNDER99
Nothing wrong with the Sikorsky S-72. IT'S JUST PLAINLY AWESOME!!
I think you mean "planely" awesome.
I regret nothing.
Aircraft is both singular and plural. Aeroplane is how you spell "Airplane" unless you are determined to speak pidgin...
Mistake, I do not want to see pictures but to see them flying these planes ! Anyway, I love these strange planes !!!
1,800 kg or 20 T (???) I assume it's an accidental mistake from narrating too quickly. 1,800 kg is a hair under 2 tons (3,960 lbs, or 1.98 US ton), or 1.8 metric tonnes for us Canadians. Definitely not 20 tons!
Aircraft is both plural and singular. One aircraft, two aircraft, many aircraft.
O MY GOD, THANK YOU! THANK YOU FOR MENTIONING THE SPRUCE GOOSE!
When I saw that, I knew that was legit.
#6 looks like one of my childhood paper plane rejects..
Weird... the Lockheed Martin logo and writing on the tri-hull blimp is backwards in the first photo, and then the right way in the second photo. The weird thing is that for the writing to be backwards like that, the blimp would have had to be inside-out!
Or they took a photo, and did a horizontal flip of it...
Why would the army be interested in fixed wing aircraft?
„Its a miracle that these things even fly“ well, not really
What about the F-117, SR-71, or the An-225 Mriya?
3:50 well, they weren't wrong.. jets have the "propellers" in ducts just like this weird thing did.
The last one is not an aircraft, its a hydroplane
Gruuuuman.
Just stick them all on a US flag and claim the lot. A bit more of the usual. Aircrafts
Sums for learners:
1800 kg = 1.8 Metric Tonnes
1800 kg = 1.98416 US Tons
1800 kg = 1.771572 Imperial Tons
Radio Wales 4
Also the 'flying wing' was the German Ho 2210 or something, not the US one.
This video is pretty bad for all the reasons listed below
You missed the Avro Arrow. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow
You missed the Aero Spacelines Pregnant Guppy & Super Guppy
why are almost all of these from usa?
the germans and soviets too had some weird aircraft...
'eighteen hundred kilograms, or twenty tons.' um, 1800 K = 4020 lbs, or 2 tons, not 20. what carelessness!
A good list of experimental aircraft........some were dead ends.......but they all helped answer questions of flight!.....note:American designs tend to push a certain technology of the times!
Get your facts right on the BV-141 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_%26_Voss_BV_141). It was not produced primarily because of power issues, and by the time a bigger engine had been installed, the Fw 189 had been decided on.
#9 The Sikorsky S-72 should be replaced with the AH-56 Cheyenne as the Cheyenne came first.
Some people picture the spice goose being biult like a house,,,not so it was made of wood laminutes,think of bow limbs on recurve bows or laminated gunstocks made up of layers of wood semalure to plywood only in very thin layers maybe 32 layers to the inch very strong stuff and lighter than steel or aluminum!!!
No Convair XFY Pogo..?
3:00 quite successful 3:08 turned out to be useless. best voices overs ever...
The Dornier DO 31 was not the first VTOL design
how is the predator drone unique just askin
What about the 'Caspian Sea Monster', a russian test aircraft? I'd think that would be pretty darn weird,
Why do you keep showing Non American Planes
He's just reading descriptions from other texts.
The "Spruce Goose" was a GLIDER? I seem to recall that there were 8 ENGINES on the thing! There are SO MANY errors in this video that it is painful to watch the entire thing without giving up in disgust. Do some RESEARCH dammit!
how is the kalini k-7 not in it
3:20
ITS AIRWOLF!
The plural of aircraft is: aircraft. Not aircrafts.
6:19 it'sVVA-14, not BBA-14
IS THIS JUST ME OR ANYONE ELSE NOTICED THIS????
I am not entirely sure, but as far as the rest of this planet is concerned, 1000 kilograms=1 metric tone. So my question is which one is correct ? At 0:52 you claim that this particular aircraft can lift 1800 kilograms or 20 tonnes... Which one is it then? 1800 kilograms or 20 metric tonnes? Just to clarify this for you 20 metric tonnes = 20 000 kilograms...
Did you skip some basic classes in school or something??
This is shocking.
Hughes' flying boat "saw action after WWII"? I don't think so!
And it's Grumman, not 'grew man.'
Who writes this crap?
I always thought the Germans were the crazy aircraft experimenters... :P
1800 kilos is just under two tons not 20 tons.
Not grew man, it's Grumman..
3:17 Airwolf is that you?
'
M
U
R
I
C
A
so much freedom, the number one of this list is the number one freedom giver of the middle east
1800 KG or 20 tons? what?
No shinden?Why?
"GrOOman"
at number 3 it looks like a Hydra bomber
that avro-car though.
Its Canadian therefor Vee Zed 9. Couldn't be inspiration for flying saucer reports since 1) never got more than a few feet off ground; 2) was never anywhere near Area 51.
The pancake aircraft "flipped" now did it?
He needs to do some research.
obviously voice text is off number 4
who said aircraft is not from the English
It's Gr-um-man not Groo-man
He speaks at the highest rate of bullshit per minute . Hoping that fast bullshit will do the job. That russian wingless contraption might be an Ekranoplan .
Grum man. That's how it's pronounced...
1800 = 20t? WTF???
Damn... aircraft consume junk foods and steroids too!
It's just me or he is in a rush?
1000Kg = 1 Ton
the plural of aircraft is aircraft
A copy of Talltanic channel?
Wow! I don't think I've ever seen such a mixture of half true and just plain mistaken commentary. Your idea of what is strange is bizarre to say the least. You mixed pictures of the XB-35 and the XB-49 both flying wings but one prop and one jet engined. I personally watched Starship 1 take off from Mojave Airport (self styled "space port") and launch the first privately funded spaceship launch. That last thing, the Russian vehicle wasn't a true airplane, it was designed to fly in ground effect and not to fly over about 25 feet above the surface. The Russians built quite a few different models some capable of lifting hundreds of tons of materials. The so called "Spruce Goose" was in no way a glider. I have to wonder where you came up with that idea. Also it was never flown after that first foray by Howard Hughes. There's lots of other inaccuracies to numerous to remember.
Wtf is subordibal?
HOW IS IT POSSIBLE to pack SO MANY GROSS ERRORS, mispronunciations and just plain UNTRUTHS into one short video?!
Just in the 1st minute or so:
- [1] Who told these guys that "the flying pancake... DIDN'T need a runway" (at 0:25)?!
- [2] Also, it's good to know (at 0:49) that this aircraft is "supported by an aerodynamic lift." (Well, what aircraft ISN'T, Einstein?! =o )
- [3] (at 0:54) 1800 Kilograms is LESS than 2 tons! So, WHICH IS IT - 20 tons or less than 2?!
- [4] at 1:09 - "sub-ORTibal"? How about sub-orbital?
- [5] and SINCE WHEN was the Spruce Goose (at 1:49) a GLIDER ?! =o
The MISinformation is simply astonishing!
Yikes! =o
...had to just stop counting and enjoy the unfolding train wreck.
ah reminds me of hollywood, never let the facts get in the way of a good story.... so much wrong with this.... and not even talking about the VO
@1:08
Sub Ortible huh? It's pronounced Nuculer!
This is hopeless, full of ridiculous errors. You could have spent half an hour watching other videos right here on RUclips and corrected all of that, or done it in 5 minutes on Wikipedia. Eg. First the V173 was a small, low-powered (and very successful) proof of concept for the XF5U, you show pictures of both "aircraft" and talk about it as if the V173 would fly from carriers, and mix up the two aircraft's histories and pictures all over the place. The BV 141 wrecks found were not "probably due to failed flight testing", they flew very well and exceeded all requirements except max. power. This guy assumes because it looks funny it probably didn't work - you don't think the aircraft manufacturer maybe CHECKED if it flew before they spent a fortune in precious war resources building a bunch of them? Like the producers should have before releasing the video! Finding the wrecked planes in France is usually credited to the Germans not wanting to leave their new technology for the Allies - you made this video, you should have known that. 1800 kilos isn't nearly 20 tons it's almost TWO tons. The "Spruce Goose" (HK4 Hercules) was never a glider, what the hell? The first shot the video shows is a bunch of engines! It never *served* at all! It did one taxi run and barely lifeted off the water, just to prove it could. The whole thing is useless and it'd be better to replace the entire narrative with "yuk yuk, ain't that funny lookin'!" It'd be a lot more accurate! Just look stuff up, it takes no time!
bizzare
leave him alone ......he is talkin' goood elglish, and maths may not be his strong point (e.g.1800kg = 20t) he may also be American so English is not his first language and he is stuck in the dark ages of the Imperial system.
You stumble over many words during this presentation. You could use a little work on your elocution.
YAWN!! Effin' click bait.
The word "aircraft" is an irregular plural word. This means that it doesn't take an "s" to make the word plural.The word "aircraft" is supposed to be used for BOTH singular AND plural!!! That's why you use the term "aircraft carrier" to refer to a ship that carries 85 aircraft. Notice that nobody says "aircrafts carrier"? Notice that the spelling checker marks the word "aircrafts" as a mistake? The owner of this channel must have failed 7th grade English class to make such an easy mistake. I bet you he also says "mouses" instead of "mice" or "leafs" instead of "leaves" or "indexes" instead of "indices"...
dornier the first vtol plane? bull.
Why use the american flag on everything that is not american?
You Show Planes with american flag which where Build by Germany (Blohm und Voss, Dornier) or other like italian...
or why using always the US-Flag? better not talking about things where you habe no idea about...!
Does anyone not notice how biased this YT is