Germany's Anti-G Dive Bomber: Akaflieg Berlin B9
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 апр 2023
- In this video, we talk about Nazi Germany's experimental Akaflieg Berlin B9, a prone-pilot plane made to counter g-forces. We briefly go over how g-forces impact pilots and how they are countered today. We also discuss how well it performed and why the project effectively vanished in 1943.
![NoCap - Maliboo [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FUV7E0QyniU/mqdefault.jpg)
Originally, the engine nacelles were planned to be above the wing as to provide a wider field view for the pilot. However, if the landing gear would fail, there remained very little distance between the pilot and whatever cluttered the area of the emergency landing. Therefore the engine nacelles were returned in the traditional position below the wing to provide for something for the aircraft to land on.
So many airplanes have been produced, or designed, that even an old enthusiast always finds something new and never seen. I thought you were also going to talk about the pilot's semi-recumbent positioning in the 190, since that too was a gimmick to avoid the negative effects of G-forces. Interesting video on an airplane of which, in fifty years of being a WWII airplane enthusiast, I had never heard of! Good job!!! One small inaccuracy: the Italian government, after the fall of the fascist government, obtained the armistice on September eight, not September three, 1943. You still have very few subscribers but keep on working...after all, your channel isn't even one year old and your contents and videos are up to the level of some of the best here on YT! 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Thank you! I’m really glad I found your channel! What a great find for a WWII aircraft enthusiast! Great production, information and presentation! Hang in there! I’m excited!
The narration style has to improve. The content is ok but the word-by-word approach is (very) hard to listen to.
I agree . So many things happened in WW 2 were still learning. My grand father fought in McArthur's army in the Philippines. In the infantry. He died in if I remember correctly 1975 when I was 5 or 6 years old. Would like to go there one day.
@@davidelliott5843 it's more personal than professional. I prefer it this way actually.
@@davidelliott5843 Put them on 1.5 speed they sound perfectly normal then.
The pilot's seat in an F-16 is semi-reclined to enhance G resistance.
The RAF conducted post-war experiments with a prone pilot in the nose of a modified Gloster Meteor, but the results didn't offest numerous problems. There's at least one RUclips video on the thing.
That is actually not true. It is reclined because in the original prototype the new ACESII seat wouldn't allow the canopy to seal. Basically it's a design goof. Note that the F18/Typhoon/F22/F35/Su57 have a standard reclined (11 degrees) seat.
Oh, and an early form of G-suit was available at the end of WW2, and used by some USAAF units.
@@grumblesa10 A foruitous error with beneficial side effects, then.
@@parrotraiser6541 not every mutation is bad.
@@parrotraiser6541 Yeah, the additional G-tolerance was discovered in flight testing...
@literallya442ndclonetroope5 That's Evolution in a nutshell. 😂
Really cool to see projects covered on RUclips that were made by a student club I was part of.
Yep this is new to me. I also remember something about the seating pos of the pilots in the BF 109 and FW190 . That they were seated as if sitting flat on the floor. And improved the issue of G forces a little. I'll have to go back and see if that is so . Thanks man.
Think your on to something.
Allied planes had up right seating position like being in a chair where as the Germans sat with legs straight out to rudder pedals....the rumor was German pilots can withstand greater 'G' forces. Later sports cars & racing cars used the same seating though it was properly used to obtain lower center of gravity & aerodynamics nevertheless it helped with drivers 'G' forces...
Not sure if Japan used the leg out stretched seating position.
Cheers.
Situational awareness in the cockpit is key. If you can’t look up or behind you are dead.
criminally under rated channel
I suspect that flight testing ceased because they had learned all they could from this aircraft. It had shown that the prone position significantly improved the pilots ability to withstand G force, but its lack of performance prevented research at even higher G. The small size and modest performance meant that there was almost certainly no point in trying to develop a production version; if they had fitted hard points to this aircraft, it would surely have been to test the concept only as it certainly could not have carried a significant bomb load. I have no doubt that the data obtained from this aircraft will have been passed on to Germany's major aircraft manufacturers with a mind to further developments!🤔
To an aircraft maintenance engineer for about 50 years, I found this a very interesting video. Well done.
Flyboy Drachinifel. All you need is an epic intro.
Good channel: I especially admire the way you present technical matters clearly and understandably without jarring up the middle of the video.
An aviation nut for years, my main interest is in just these side-branch and experimental aircraft that may have ultimately gone nowhere, but always seem to have added one extra bit to our understanding of aviation science. Face it, you can do all the modelling and calculating you want, but we can't know for certain until somebody tries it.
Subscribed, thanks.
Im a doordash driver, i love listening to your videos on long drives. Thank you
I remember that hot wheels car. Back when I had it, I was too young to know about the existence of the F-82 but now it really reminds me of that plane
Hey, the Henschel Hs 132 did use a very similar cockpit configuration - directly as a result of the B9's results of mitigating G-Forces. So it's not that the B9 didn't lead to anything productive, rather the opposite - the prototype Hs 132s were nearly completed when the Soviet Army captured them.
Cheers!
Fieseler and Henschel both made planes in Kassel. I don't think the Russians ever quite got there. The last Horten wing was supposedly found at Rothwesten Kaserne, a Luftwaffe airfield, about 5 miles from Kassel. I was stationed there from 66-69 in Army Security Agency.
@anvilsvs but this aircraft was made at the Schönefeld factory, outside of berlin.(what is now an airport.)
Now this is an obscure aircraft! I love all the photos.
When you said the prototype could handle up to 29 G's; I thought to myself. "29 G's?! Holy GEEEZ that's a helluva lot of G's, the pilot must be a real G to handle even 8.5 G's... Also, GEEEZ!"
Other consideration for seated position: pilot is looking forward without neck strain. Same kind of thing has been tried a couple of times with personal sports submersibles.
The World War 2 prototype Northrop XP-79 had a prone cockpit layout too.
Cool. Never heard of this aircraft. I remember sci-fi shows where such a pilot position is used. I wonder if this was one of the things that influenced it. I also wonder if the allies did such research.
Wow, excellent work! Never heard of this before.
Great video. I knew of the B9 before, but only with shallow detail. Thanks for this. However, one request for us non-americans for the future: please give units (at least in text on screen) also in metric as pounds and mph will mean little to most people.
Excellent stuff bro
Proof of concept for the Henschel HS132, perhaps? If so, the B9 successfully completed it's program and wasn't required anymore.
Just found the channel, excellent content, and not more of the same...
Fascinating vídeo!
With regard to anti-G measures, especially anti-G suits, one should mention the anti-G suit developed by Australian aerospace physiologist Frank Cotton in the UK, circa 1940 - it was very effective, so effective, in fact, that the limiting factor became the structural limitations of the Hurricane used in the test flights. However, like the situation that the Luftwaffe faced later in WWII, the UK at the time was dealing with the Battle of Britain, & so the RAF powers that be decided to focus on what was determined to be more pressing priorities.
Every aircraft uses feet for rudder.. nothing different there.
Great photo of the engine! well done research! Thumbs up!
Never knew such an aircraft existed. Great 👍
I recall seeing the experimental prone pilot Gloster Meteor at an airshow at RAF Colerne, somewhere around 1970. Static exhibit, of course, but still interesting.
Very interesting. There was another prone-position German machine, the Blohm und Voss BV40, a glider fighter (designed to be towed above a bomber stream.) It was very small, as fast in a diving attack as a prop fighter and heavily-armed with 30mm cannon. It was abandoned in favour of jets.
I wonder if any of the things the Nazi's learned about this project went on to inspire the Arado Blitz bomber. The first operational jet bomber had a similar layout and a prone pilot position.....
There were many attempts to create prone piloted aircraft, but none of them could ever pull really high G forces. Had they been able to do so, they soon would have learned that pilots couldn't breathe under severe G loads because their ribcages would have been crushed.
We know better these days, after decades of space launches with supine crew positions enabling them to pull high G forces without blacking out. We have also learned that the onset of G force isn't perfectly vertical, as was previously believed, but is angled back slightly toward the aircraft's centre of gravity. That's why the F-16 seat is angled 30° back from vertical.
During WWII, German researchers learned that a supine pilot could withstand as much as 12 G's for up to two minutes before losing consciousness.
The way forward is clear; future fighters should increase the incline of fighter seats until the pilot is almost lying flat on their back relative to the onset of G forces, with their head and knees slightly raised. This would greatly decrease the vertical distance between the heart and brain, and allow pilots to pull much higher G loads than are currently possible without losing visibility or consciousness in the process.
F1 drivers have a similar position in the cockpit
@@dromeiro Indeed they do, but for a different reason.
In the case of race cars, it's about making the aerodynamic cross section of the cockpit as small as possible to reduce parasitic drag and make the car go faster for a given amount of power.
While the same concept (supine pilot position) could be applied to combat aircraft, the nose would still need to be wide enough to house the radar and other sensors. Still, any reduction in cross sectional area is a plus for a fighter, even if it's in the vertical rather than the horizontal.
Just came across your channel it’s very good, I like your presentation =1 sub
The main thing in my mind is how the blazes do you bail out of that thing? Maybe that had something to do with the abrupt end as well.
You did Tom dirty at 1:13 😂😂😂
This is such a nice little "micro HE111" :-)
Unfortunately "Heinkelchen" just lacks that Wonderweapon ring to the Name.
"Mom, can we have He-111?"
"We have He-111 at home"
He-111 at home:
@@Sseltraeh89 Yes hahaha
B9 would've made one heck of a recon aircraft if it'd been fast enough with that downward view enabling the pilot to see the ground clearly without obstruction.
Nice video, do you think Yougoslavian Ikarus S-451 aircraft was related to the project? It seems to share many similarities and improvments upon the original concept.
I don't get why they insisted on using huge windows on aircraft instead of using periscopic mirrors for full visibility while being able to get more potentially armored cover for the pilots, or at least cover that was lighter and less fragile.
Supine would have been a better choice. Just look at all those high performance sailplanes that use a supine position for the pilot. It also gives the pilot a better view.
Also reduces frontal area. With no motor all you have is a body to get through the air.
The British revisited the prone pilot concept with an experimental Gloster Meteor, but the G-suit was developed to save many a pilot a crick in the neck! lol
The prone Meteor is in Cosford museum. It looks very uncomfortable.
@@philhawley1219 I dont know, its probably better than laying flat like this thing has the pilot situated. More like a motor bike with the Meteor.
The G-Suit stops the blackouts on high G, this is anti G handling (red-outs) :-y
The Horton flying wing also used a prone pilot.
actually having the tail rudders operated via foot pedals is the standard.
They did look at a replacement of the Stuka which had the pilot in the prone position.
You have a lovely singing voice.
Damn mate you growin faaasst!
The Bob Sample of the air.
When does the plane part of the video start?
The Herc is on the H version the early versions are no longer in service. The G and H version are the back bone off the Air force support force long with C-17.
How about supine position? Always left out.
Ooo the we had no choice route, solid choice lol
At 3:32 they show the fs17 glider that can withstand 14g. What is the practical requirement to pull 14g in a glider? Was this just a proof of concept with the intent to apply it to a fighter aircraft?
It's not just about maneuvering. A hard landing could create large g-forces as well, especially on long glider wings. The higher g-limit gives the aircraft better survivability and/or service life, which is desirable, especially when you only got a limited amount of prototypes to work with.
It could also have been in preparation for installing engines, bringing the g-limit down to something 'more reasonable' with the extra weight.
@@fonesrphunny7242 aircraft design is about balance and tradeoffs. If you build that much margin into a glider you are making it way too heavy for nothing. Normal or utility category (3.8 or 4.2g respectively) is plenty. This has been demonstrated by 80 years of commercial aircraft design. Nobody is designing aircraft to sustain a 14g landing!!! I spent 4 yrs downloading black boxes from accidents and incidents and analyzing data for one of the largest commercial aircraft mfgs and I can tell you that a 3g landing is brutal - almost a crash and certainly requiring inspection and likely repair. 14g is ridiculous.
Nazis had at least one jet powered design similar to small Henkel 162.
(That had jet engine on top of the main body behind the pilot).
Drawing showed pilot laying on stomach and cockpit having glass nose.
Excellent research!
Although I am sure you didn't create this video solely for the USA.
It would have been nice to have the units in metric as well!
🎉❤😊 A10 ++++ futurs gammas Blanche moteur forces armées areas Raze Bitton
Wasn't the pilot in the Arado Ar 234 also prone?
Yes.
Your videos kick ass
if you lay on belly... how can you use feet to control aircraft?
Foot pedals like on other aircraft
Would be great to make a Scale RC version of this plane.
What is doralemon?
Underrated RUclipsr.
If the construction plans are still in the archives they should build a replica of it! It looks awesome in this black with red tail! Today one could use Porsche PFM 3200 flat 6 fuel injected engines they are lighter and stronger.
There was a problem with pilots falling asleep. " I just closed my eyes for a second".
170 miles it's how many in normal units?
170 / 5 * 8 = close enough
Délite Ultras secrets Atomique 40 emes neutrons rapides Lazer area manager falthers raze
Those props aren't contrarotating both look to be anticlockwise looking at the pitch orientation.?
I was led to believe contrarotation was a must for aerodynamic stability unless something else I'm missing.? Off centred engines.? Dunno. Confused now. Lol
Torque from counter-rotating engines cancels out. It's not strictly necessary, but makes the aircraft easier to fly and avoids certain problems (like uncontrolled roll when adding power too quickly at low speeds)
The German WW2 Reconnaissance/ Jet Bomber the Arado i believe was a 'prone' position Aircraft so the research wasn't wasted totally
“In late 1944, Arado submitted their E.381 parasite miniature fighter to the RLM (German Air Ministry). … The pilot lay in a «prone position», …”
Similar for the initial Me P.1103 design.
Jeez!
*25 G's??!!* 😱
You never mentioned that the Germans continued prone aircraft research but focused it into developing very small bomber attack aircraft driven by rocket power. They did this because of the massive B17 attacks on Germany. A very small prone rocket fighter had very area to shoot at unlike a Me109 or Fw190. It was fast and very hard to hit. These prototype aircraft were dropped in favor of the tiny conventual cockpit Me163 rocket figter.
Conventual? Were they liwn by nuns?
Can you imagine this thing streamlined like the 262 with a couple of jet engines? Would have made quite a dive bomber.
The answer to combating G force is actually really obvious. Assuming you want to keep the pilot in the aircraft.
What is the projects intention.
What are they looking for a new airplane?
Are were they looking for a test bid for a new type of cockpit. The type that would be used in some of their jet bombers and reconnaissance aircraft.
The Wright flyer comes to mind...
Afaik, the arado blitz had a prone pilot.
Tom Scott was the unconscious picture.
re: Hot Wheels Double-Vision, it's the boxy engine nacelles.
Those 'Hert(?) HMs' don't look like "air cooled" engines to me.
I think it was a *Hirth* engine.
The company still exists today and still produces aircraft engines.
But I really can't say if the engine for this airplane was air or water cooled or even if the picture shown in the video was the right one.
Modern aircraft places the trigger in front of the magazine, thus are bullpups.
They used this copckit in Henschel Hs132 jet dive bomber later
Does Tom Scott know you put his face in there? :)
Looks a bit FW189ish from the front
Dive Bomber! 9:15
Didn't anyone experiment with the reclined position ? You know like in the F16 .
You do know that the inclination of the ejector seat in the F-16 was to allow it to fit in the fuselage and not to increase the g tolerance margin?
@@neiloflongbeck5705 How would he know that when its likely everything he's ever read about the airplane said the purpose of the recline is to increase pilot G tolerance. I've never read anything else anywhere either, and I've read a lot of different sources. You must have documentary evidence most of us have not seen. Can you point to it for us?
@@gort8203 I read this over 30 years ago now as a student. So I no longer can recall the source. It could have been anyone of the books on combat aircraft design or the F-16 article in the World Air Power Journal. Or it could have been from looking at the F-16's dimensions and those of the seat. As the height of the ACES II ejection seat is around 130 cm tall (about 4.3 feet) and the cockpit fuselage area is about 4.45 feet tall at the highest point of the canopy (estimated from a cut away drawing), but not all of the fuselage depth is the cockpit (about as foot of the fuselage is below the cockpit floor). Doing the maths means the seat had to be inclined to fit.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Thanks. Everything I’ve read since I began following the F-16 in the 1970s stated that the seat angle was a deliberate innovation to improve G tolerance, not an opportunistic fix for a design misjudgment. Everything I can find today says the same thing. I would exercise caution deducing intent from the dimensions of the seat and cockpit in the absence of documentary evidence of such intent. Naturally the seat angle did allow a smaller cockpit, but that doesn’t mean the cockpit dimensions were finalized before the seat was. Yes that is possible, but I have to think it much more likely that the cockpit was sized after the seat angle was chosen.
@@gort8203 likewise, nearly every source says that the wing span of the Stirling and Halifax was limited to 100ft due to the size of the hangars on RAF bases and everyone of these sources is wrong. But this has becone the standard narrative but no one knows the origin of this. It's well known that the RAF had hangars with doors that opened to 120feet (the Type C) and that the P.13/36 specification called for the majority of maintenance to be carried out outdoors anywhere in the world. It's also claimed that the Mel262's wing was swept back to increase its high speed performance and its critical Mach number (which it did, the 18 degrees of wing sweep increased the max airspeed increased by a whopping 25 knots over the original straight winged version) instead of to correct the centre of gravity change due to heavier than expected engines. Several other aircraft also had wing sweep, but no one suggests that their swept wings were for high speed flight, examples include the Dunne tailless aircraft, the DH Tiger Moth and the DC-1 to DC-3.
Your assumption that you can't work things out from drawings or puctures is extremely poor. This is what the intellitence agencies have doing for centuries. Any scale modeller, like me, who scratch builds buildings from photographs will be able to do this. As I said my measurements were all estimates base of the height of the F-16 being 16 ft.
Yes the seat was selected early on in the F-16 programme but instead of using the standard model as was to be used in the A-10 and F-15 in a similar orientation they were forced by the fuselage/canopy design to stick it in at around double the recline angle. The external shape of the F-16 could have been changed if had not been for messing up the area rule and its transonic performance or increasing its size, which would have encroached onto the F-15 and the USAF were unwilling to let that happen. All you need us 1 dimension to scale off for each dimension you need to consider. So for all heights you can scale off the vertical height.
Now of days we in the USA have Saturn V or VI Shuttle Pod Rockets with normal or noes upward Recliner seats
First thought on seeing this thing: WTF?!
A Good Plain of kind but the pilot view is mostly covered
4:12 looks a lot like a Beaufighter.
Ejector seats would prove problematic.
Not the best idea, from what I see. Your narrator said that, the pilots felt uncomfortable, after an hour, and a half. But several minutes later, he also said; "All in all though, comfort was certainly not, much of an issue"🤔⁉️ It can't be both.
Thanks for not using metric
So ur telling me this thing actually flew??? Never thought Id see the day a ww2 german prototype that functioned
What about the experimental soviet plane that requires the poor pilot to amputate their legs to fit on the tiny cockpit
The phrase “flat out dying” is quite odd when the context is death caused by not being flat out.
I just listened a little bit more, and you did not do this for a leanth of time then fell back into it. When you do not this your quite nice to listen to and not in anyway objectionable. I just feel bad but felt I should be honest and tell you it's not something that is all the time.
I quite like the few sentences where it's not constantly a part of your reading...
And again, sorry...
Talk about "laying down on the job"
My Grandfather was a Stuka pilot…🤙🤙🤙
Why make it worse than its initial design
Its ok
bet when G Suits came out all that thinking went by the wayside
You don't wanna see the two man configuration 😝