The Best American Plane to Never Fight - XB-51
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- The Martin XB-51 was a colossal bomber aircraft built in the late 1940s that exceeded all expectations and was probably the finest bomber that never went to battle.
Not to be confused with the B-52, one of the most famous aircraft of all time, the B-51's lifespan was too brief to be awarded an official nickname. Still, its unusually prolonged shape granted it the moniker of "The Flying Cigar."
Faster than almost any fighter of its time, military experts believe the Martin XB-51 could have made a substantial difference in the Southeast Asian wars, but it was never produced.
Defense analyst Robert Dorr wrote in the Defence Media Network: (QUOTE): “The XB-51 incorporated a rotary weapons bay that enabled it to deliver bombs while flying at high speed. Capable of 645 mph at sea level in level flight, the XB-51 would have been able to run away from most fighters of its era.”
Despite successful trial runs and a promising future, the B-51 project was ultimately canceled for mysterious political reasons...
---
Join Dark Skies as we explore the world of aviation with cinematic short documentaries featuring the biggest and fastest airplanes ever built, top-secret military projects, and classified missions with hidden untold true stories. Including US, German, and Soviet warplanes, along with aircraft developments that took place during World War I, World War 2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the Gulf War, and special operations mission in between.
As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Skies sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect and soundtracks for emotional impact. We do our best to keep it as visually accurate as possible.
All content on Dark Skies is researched, produced, and presented in historical context for educational purposes. We are history enthusiasts and are not always experts in some areas, so please don't hesitate to reach out to us with corrections, additional information, or new ideas.
![The Fighter That Tried To Replace The Spitfire | Martin-Baker MB.5 [Aircraft Overview #82]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1CJWEc_sQkQ/mqdefault.jpg)
They thought the quality of their planes would be all they needed to win the contract and didn't buy enough lobbyists.
They just barely avoided cancellation with the B-26. No one wanted to see them come that close to blowing it with the B-51. Martins are known for having long "teething" periods...
@@craigwall9536 That's why Martin was given a good British design to build...
@Drone Strike And perversely thje USAF wanted to kill the U2 but the politicians made them hang onto it, in both cases, sense prevailed.
@SECDUP Were you not paying attention to the video?
@@FIREBRAND38 Did you?
To the Dark channel owners, each and every one of them.....thank you.
It's the same dude, different channels for different subjects
*same narrator for different channels
Agreed! Love all the Dark channels, and the narration is top notch. Thank you!
It’s a program. You can be a narrator as well
Such punctuation 😐
Always love your military stories of days gone. Very intriguing and informative. Nico from Trinidad and Tobago
Shame it was not developed further. The p-47 thunderbolt was altered to be more fuel efficient and retained it combat capabilities. I am sure this could of been done for the XB-51.
As someone who has been in aviation for 40 years, hearing about some of these more obscure aircraft is awesome! I also love to hear about some of the speculation as to the 'why's and 'how's of why they either succeeded or failed such as the XB-51. Please keep it up and your doing a great job on all of the projects you have on YT.
It looks like something you'd make in kerbal space program.
Not enough engines, or rockets though
Yep... or Simpleplanes.. Where we all become avionics engineers and destroy things... before take off!
Thought it was an outtake from the Nazi X-planes.
The B-51 while an interesting design with some neat features in its design, like variable incidence wing, rotating bomb racks and trijet configuration, it had some major drawbacks. It had to short of a range, was G limited, thus restricted maneuverability under high gross weights, poor takeoff and landing performance and the bicycle landing gear limited its ability to use alternative airfields, which were mandatory due to its very limited endurance. (Under 1500 miles is a serious limitation for a jet bomber.) the Canberra was a far superior airplane in every way that really counted for its mission requirements. About the only thing the B-51 did better was go faster with a bit better high speed maneuverability, but not enough to counter jet fighters of the period. It also lacked payload capacity
Probably didn't help that both prototypes crashed and were destroyed.
> It had to short of a range, [...]
According to the Wikipedia entries for the XB-51 and the English Electric Canberra bombers, the combat range of the former was 1,075 miles versus the latter's 810 miles.
The U.S. version of the Canberra, the B-57 Canberra has a combat range of 950 miles.
> was G limited, [...]
Name a combat aircraft that isn't G-limited. Seriously.
I don't recall ever seeing a Vg versus Vn diagram that didn't show a G-limit during some part of an aircraft's flight envelope.
> [...] poor takeoff and landing performance [...]
I await with bated breath for you to cite a reference to justify this claim especially in light of the JATO bottles shown in the video on the XB-51 ... something I can't recall ever seeing on a Canberra.
> and the bicycle landing gear limited its ability
> to use alternative airfields, which were mandatory
> due to its very limited endurance.
Pretty much every jet powered U.S. combat aircraft that I can think of required a long, well kept runway to operate out of and so I find your comment to be questionable, especially since the combat range (i.e. the un-refueled range of the aircraft given a normal combat load) for the XB-51 is better/longer than the combat range of either the English Electric Canberra or the B-57 Canberra.
Perhaps you are confusing the ferry range (i.e. the maximum range carrying the maximum amount of internal and external fuel which according to Wikipedia is indeed longer for both the English Electric and the B-57 Canberra versus the XB-51.
> (Under 1500 miles is a serious limitation for a
> jet bomber.)
Then the Canberra is very seriously limited as a jet bomber.
> the Canberra was a far superior airplane in every
> way that really counted for its mission requirements.
"Superiority"/"inferiority" depend on what criteria is used.
You haven't mentioed any and so any claim that one aircraft is "superior" or "inferior" is basically meaningless.
> About the only thing the B-51 did better was go
> faster with a bit better high speed maneuverability, [...]
And climb faster indicating that it's thrust to drag ratio was better than either Canberra.
> [...] but not enough to counter jet fighters of the
> period.
As was the case for the Canberra as well.
That's why there such things as air superiority fighters.
> It also lacked payload capacity.
Really?
The way I read the Wikipedia entries, the XB-51 could carry at least one ton more than either of the Canberras.
Where are you coming up with your information?
@@lewiscole5193 And yet the USAAF chose a foreign design instead of the XB51, which duly got cancelled. Were they being stupid?
@@64Alvis
> Were they being stupid?
You are making the mistake of assuming that despite being made of a large number of people, all of whom do things for different reasons, the Air Force can be thought of a single intelligent entity that does things for a single "rational" reason.
So far as I can tell, that's not the way things work at all.
The easiest example that I can think of to demonstrate that this is the case is history behind the F-X, what eventually became the F-15.
It didn't start out to be a very maneuverable aircraft at all, but rather an F-111 on steroids.
It is only because of the actions of a relatively small number of people within the military establishment, the Lightweight Fighter Mafia, that it is what it is today.
And they didn't want to stop at what the F-15 became but rather to continue to reduce the weight of the F-X to become an even hotter aircraft, the F-XX which only after a some behind-the-scenes intrigue, eventually became the F-16.
While it may be amusing to view how the F-15 and F-16 came into existence as rational decisions made by a unified Air Force, that's not what really happened at all
So you'll excuse me or not (as I don't really care), but I consider your attempt to try to characterize the decision making process behind why the B-57 got built and the XB-51 didn't as rational/irrational/smart/stupid as more than a bit silly.
If you know more of the gory details not covered in the video that supports your notion that this is not the case, then feel free to enlighten me/us.
@@64Alvis the role the B-51 was designed for was less critical than the designed role of the canabera
Everything was changing to enhance the effect of the transition from prop to jet propulsion. Each new design incorporated innovations whose overall utility was never certain. What might look good in 1945 might seem old-fashioned in 1947. Consider that, in 1950, our chief strategic weapons platform was the B50, a retreaded B29 with 450mph top speed at altitude, but a few short years later we were building B52 and B58 bombers with 650mph and Mach 2 performance. respectively. The B51 was one of several promising designs fallen by the wayside in the process.
Jets of the era were slow to accelerate, had long take-off runs, but demonstrated superior performance over prop powered planes (of equivalent type) in rate of climb, ceiling, and top speed. They (strategic bombers) were overtaken by the improvement of the AA Missile, forcing level bombers to deploy stand off weapons instead of dumb bombs. For this work the B52 was ideal.
Also the ever developing ballistic missile programs made a lot of tactical and penetration bombers more and more obsolete, most were scrapped and a few repurposed, like the F 105.
@William Cox
Excellent explanation Mr.Cox. People tend to forget those points you mentioned. Technology evolves rapidly, and much is learned from previous designs. As technology advances and materials are developed to enable the design to become manifest old designs and machines become obsolete. At least in the sense of what is considered to be state of the art.
As you stated, the B52 became the successor to the B51 because it was capable of what the B51 was capable and more so. And that design with upgrades still functions in it's role. Though admittedly that's pretty limited now.
Right to all this. Thx, B52 Bob
looks like a number of the B51 features were later used in the B47 and B52...
@@TimSmith-si7rv Definitely some similarities between this plane and the B-47. Biggest difference I see is a serious lack of range with the XB-51. The B-47 carrying nearly twice the bomb load had 4 times the range, which made them a viable threat to the Soviet Union. Had the XB-51 been adopted I suspect it would have had a high operational loss rate and a short service life, issues that the B-47 suffered from as well.
No I'd give the label of the best American plane to never fight to the F-20 Tigershark
100%
Unfortunately it's competition was the B-47
Oh, yes! I also thought the Tigershark was a better option than other fighters, especially since the airframe had a proven service history. And, I have to say, the red/white color scheme of the first one was amazing!
Wasn’t Chuck Yeager involved in the design and testing?
@@davehollick3646 no, just the promotion.
9:35 The pilots were likely not very experienced with slower accelerating early jet engines. From what I've seen, they need to stay on the ground much longer than props of the same era.
They literally fly planes for a living though. Pretty sure they knew what was up.
Early jet engines did not produce a lot of thrust, so the early jet bombers accelerated very slowly unless helped with JATO/RATO thrust to get them up to flying speed before running out of runway, until SAC built bomber bases with 2-mile-long runways. A fully loaded B-52 and a fully loaded 747 both need about 10,000 feet of runway to get airborne, but the 747 does it at twice the weight of the B-52.
@@danpatterson8009 What model 747 would that be?
@@danpatterson8009 747s had a requirement to use the same length runways as 707s and DC8s. It is part of the reason they have the huge and complex Fowler flap system and large leading edge slats. Needed for the extra lift they provide at low landing speeds. The early first generations 747 engines had trouble making the needed thrust for takeoff performance. So some of the early jets were equipped with water injection. Plus the pilots had some operational tricks they used to coax more takeoff thrust out of the engines. But engine revisions and updates improved performance and the water injection systems were superseded and removed later. Even back then, the 747 was not lacking in power. Outside of the long retired supersonic concord and the transonic Convair 880, it is still the fastest commercial jetliner aircraft flying. The 747-200’s were sometimes flown at Mach .9 to .92 on repositioning flights with no passengers. Most big airliners today are flown at Mach .8 to .85. The planes had no trouble flying that fast, they just used a lot more fuel. (The fuselage of the 747 was shaped to fly at higher speeds than they normall operated at.) the newer models had the wings re-configured for a little less speed and more fuel efficiency. By the way, a DC8 did a test flight where it actually exceeded the speed of sound, reaching Mach 1.01. (Reaching that speed was no problem, but slowing down from that speed revealed some interesting control events that definitely got the pilots attention. They had shock wave issues with the flight control surfaces. It caused unCommended deflection of the ailerons and the pilots ability to operate the elevators and rear horizontal stabilizer trim and elevators.) A speed record it held for around 20 years until the concord beat it. And the Russian tu144 supersonic airliner. There have been times civilian airliners have exceeded the speed of sound, but those were in out of control situations and most of them never survived the event. (They crashed.) I can think of maybe 2 that recovered and landed more or less safely.
The C-130's still have prop's for a reason.
Best plane to never fight? HA!!! Never wise to make such bold statements, especially regarding dubious aircraft choices.
Ta-152, DeHavilland Hornet, XF-107, F8U-3 Crusader II, YF-23, F-16XL, F-20, Avro Arrow, YF-12, and countless others deserve that title FAR more.
This dude often gets it wrong, and listening to his narration is painful.
Don't forget TSR2
The Ta 152 did enter combat. About 20 of them were in service with JG 301 in 1945, providing top cover for Me 262 airbases.
There were several squadrons of both DeHavilland Hornets and Sea Hornets successfully deployed for many years. Test pilot Winkle Brown said the Hornet was the best flying aircraft he ever tested or flew. I'll go with his opinion ... ^v^
@@Rambogner Yes . Arguable the most capable aircraft never to reach production.
This would make a great premium for War Thunder.
Yeah
I third this
I agree.
Hans Muthropp responsible for the “ T-Tail” in the design, worked for them then after WWII
German Designer
ir´s multhopp for anyone that wants to dive into deeper research
_"Despite successful trial runs and a promising future, the B-51 project was ultimately cancelled... for mysterious political reasons."_
I wonder how much scientific progress and innovation has been stifled because some Senator decided it wouldn't line their pocket enough.
There are plenty of good reasons to cancel good planes, see the F-22.
@@yyyyyeeeee4060 As far as I'm aware, the YF-23 was the superior aircraft, it ultimately was passed over because the USAF didn't want to give Northrop both the B-2 and next gen fighter.
Us army having successful progress in hstvl program before the abrams was even made a prototype, congress still doesnt implement into production. Like come on, u didnt have to waste that time and money and spend a lot again on the xm8 ags, the hstvl wouldve done fine with the 90mm in development
grovermatic No, neither aircraft was “superior” to the other. Both had pros and cons. But only one aircraft could win, and the one with the overall better qualities and best deal did.
@@bennylofgren3208 I'll trust your judgement over my bout of cynicism.
Looks like something from the Thunderbirds TV show
Martin XB-51 was a inferior plane, Martin ended up being chosen to manufacture the B-57.
Canberra was certainly a better plane especially with the B-57 cockpit
@@davidmcintyre8145 yup 👍 click bait titule
Why do people keep comparing it to the B-57, they were built for two completely different roles!
@@blockstacker5614 The Canberra was built for many roles it was conceived as nothing more or less than a jet powered mosquito capable of all the roles the mossie could do including carrier operations
The narrator calls it a fighter . . . . with an XB label?
Nice plane 👌🏻. I've never read about it
@@arshdeepsinghmalhi4554 yes
Martin's seems like it got the short end of the stick often. Maybe not enough contributions to congress. And their planes did not get the publicity other companies' planes got.
Martin built the licenced B57, which was the aircraft selected over the XB51, so I don't think they lost out all that much. B57 was a proven design with extraordinary altitude, range, and stability.
If by donations you mean bribes and kickbacks
Martin often did get a lot of contracts and was a major defense contractor before, during and after WW2. The main times I can think of them getting the short stick was the 146 (which was as the air force said, an evolutionary dead end, but it was better than the Bolo), and the XB-51 (which their aircraft could be argued to be better fit or a worse fit) and in that last example they still got a production contract.
Some of the other times they lost contracts due to just not having the ideal aircraft (XB-48) or the aircraft they were creating didn't have a role anymore (P6M). Aircraft like the Maryland would find production despite not being ideal, and aircraft like the Mauler would have aspects that would let them down. But they still had great designs like the B-26 and even produced a lot of B-29's including the Silverplate ones.
Don't forget the tumultuous early years when Glenn Martin ran the show. He had to step on a lot of toes in order to get his designs & products noticed & appreciated.
@@tpxchallenger Interestingly NASA still has a couple of those in use to this day, both heavily modified with JT3 engines and extended wings for high altitude. In the end the B 57 did prove itself as a versatile and useful aircraft especially for an first series jet bomber. It may have been a licensed British design, but Martin went very far with it.
Interesting. This "American" Plane looks very similar to a german concept Plane. The
Me P.1102
Along with many US concepts.
Out of curiosity, I might have misunderstood the context, but what was the reason a F-100 ZLL test was shown at the 1:00 mark?
Was it to represent "fighters of [the XB-51's] era"?
Normal for this channel.
Wouldn't be this series if there wasn't mismatched or completely incorrect images.
@@ProjectFlashlight612 i wonder what the percentage of the viewers are aviation nerds like us who would notice these things
@@roywhiteo5If your watching this channel your a nerd so most notice the mistakes.
The b-51 had enough fuel to bomb the other end of the runway before having to turn back.
Range is kind of important for a bomber. That's why the b-52 and tu-95 have lasted so long.
Inflight refueling made long range bombers really work.
Seem to know what your talking about fly boy..... agreed!
A b52 and tu weren't attack , groundstrafing bombers like the xb51 , please watch the category
@@cnfuzz
I don't recall the video saying anything about the XB-51 being intended for use as a "groundstrafing [sic] bomber".
What I do recall was the video mentioning that the XB-51 was originally designed to be a "high speed" bomber, something that doesn't imply low flying, especially in the context of the time it was being designed.
Please cite some justification for why you're trying to [mis-]categorize the XB-51 in the way that you have.
@@lewiscole5193 Eight 20mm cannons could be put on the nose. That's not the kind of thing you put into a high altitude bomber like the B52. The 52 was also much larger, making it suited to different kinds of missions than a light bomber like the 51 would be used for. So yeah different categories of plane.
Despite a 40+ year career in aviation maintenance, I am always amazed at how much more there is to learn about the history of American aviation, particularly the development of unconventional configurations and models that didn't make it beyond the prototype stage. Keep up the great work in bringing the existence these seemingly obscure "oddballs" to light as it enhances public awareness of otherwise unknown contributions.
The XB51 was no oddball. Aeronautically and structurally sound. I'm just saying...
I always enjoy this channel's videos. Great footage, voice over and story telling from concept to retirement. Thanks!!
Yeah, these videos are good.
well, put yourself in the procurement officer's shoes. you have been given the directive to get a bomber that has good loiter time and endurance. experience of the Korean war has shown that speed is not a significant factor. 2 planes matter in this thing the martin and the English electric.
the tests show that the English electric(which is already is in British service and is through testing) is better with range and loiter time but slow. the martin (a barely tested prototype)was good in speed but not loiter time. the English electric is just a better plane for your requirements. I doubt there are any politics about it.
also, I think you are underselling how good the Canberra was. it lasted in US service into the '80s(5 years after the introduction of the f16) and they weren't retired in British service until 2006. and there are still 3 flying taking pictures for NASA today. it is a good plane.
people like to blame politics for stifling innovation, but I don't think the xb-51 would still be flying today if it were adopted.
I was going to say that flying for Taiwan the RB-57 has done things and missions that are still classified to this day. The last active combat done by the B-57 was in Vietnam. As to speed and range of the B-57, an English electric Canberra was the first aircraft assigned to penetrate the Soviet base at Kapustin Yar. And it proved to be fast enough to get the job done. And I agree the B-51 probably would have been retired once the B-52 was sorted out. The B-58 hustler would have almost certainly ended its service
@@matthewcaughey8898 speed is a flashy stat, but it's the slow planes that stick around.
It had half the range of its competitor the Canberra and a weak airframe, it could not conduct high speed tiers when fully loaded. While advanced and fast it wasn't up to the rigours of warfare.
Half the ferry range of the Canberra, but still a greater combat range than the Canberra. It still could carry more and could move faster.
@Grassy Ranks I thought a can bearer was someone who bore cans. It's funny that now I've watched this, whenever I read Canberra I hear can bearer - I've been irreparably damaged!
Three J-47's? Sorry Glenn, not enough cajones. The XB-51 had a 10,000 lb payload, half that of the B-45. The F-100 had a 7,000 lb payload, twice the XB-51 range, air-to-air capability, and oh yes, it was supersonic.
That horrible dorsal inlet couldn't have helped either.
Powered by J65s it would have been different.
@@jimdavis8391 Or J-57. Or ditch the tail engine and use B-47-style twin nacelles for four engines. We can fix her, Jim!
It's easy to pick on these early designs, but transonic wind tunnels weren't available until the late 1950's.
F-100 was a dog...
> The XB-51 had a 10,000 lb payload, half that of
> the B-45.
According to the Wikipedia entries for the B-45 and the XB-51, the former could carry about 36,000lbs versus the latter's 27,000lbs and so I have no idea where you came up with the the "half" figure.
More importantly, while the B-45 could cruise at 365MPH, the XB-51 could cruise along at 644MPH, for about 1,000 miles which was basically the combat range of either.
As for what the F-100 could do compared to the XB-51, the last time I looked, 27,000lbs is greater than 7,000lbs, I can all but I guarantee you that the F-100 could fly supersonically with it's maximum "dirty" load, especially at low altitudes.
And comparing a daylight air superiority fighter to a medium bomber for air-to-air? Seriously?
@@lewiscole5193 You must be looking at a different Wikipedia. Almost all your data is wrong.
The Canberra was easily a superior aircraft to the XB-51...and better looking! The Canberra is still flying as a NASA research aircraft.
The Canberra is an absolutely incredible machine. Utterly unmatched. Rumour remains an RAF PR.9 took a photo... Looking down on a USAF U2
@@RFSA180 Agreed, the Canberra was a great design but I like the looks of the XB-51 better, it looks fast just sitting on the ground.
Because NASA doesn't fly combat missions...
@@RFSA180 that's only possible on ascent. I refuse to believe a plane with that wide of a fuselage, with that short of a wing span could get enough pressure at the altitudes a U2 Flys at...
@@patrickasplund The Martin B-57 Canberra flew reconnaissance and bombing missions in Vietnam. Reconnaissance versions continued long after bombing versions were retired.. NASA's B57Fs are still flying. The aircraft has been in service longer than the B52. The first one flew in 1949.
"Maintenance staff, pilots & designers were all fond of the XB-51. It was a radical aircraft but still practical,"
You might as well be talking about the YF-23.
Rotary bomb bay? Sounds like the blackburn s2
And B-57 Canberra
The American version of the Canberra bomber was a better choice. The rotary bomb bay was used in the B-57
IIRC, the idea for which came from the XB-51.
@@lewiscole5193 … the Air Force and Martin redesigned the British Canberra bomber. Big changes were made
@@Idahoguy10157
> the Air Force and Martin redesigned the
> British Canberra bomber. Big changes
> were made
Well, yes and no.
The Air Force puts out a set of requirements and the aircraft manufacturers try to come up with a design that meets/exceeds those requirements.
A long song and dance then follows where the Air Force tweaks its requirements and the aircraft manufacturers try to tweak their designs to match.
But the important thing is that what makes one aircraft a "better choice" is the requirements without which it's meaningless to say that one design is "better" than another.
The same holds true when someone like you claims that one aircraft is "better" than another.
Absent a set of requirements, such a claim is basically meaningless.
In the case of the English Electric Canberra and it's transformation into the B-57, there were indeed extensive changes made before the British aircraft become "suitable" to the Air Force.
But the existence of a rotary bomb bay was clearly not the deciding factor over choosing the B-57 over the XB-51 (assuming that it's reasonable to say that a choice was involved) as the XB-51 had such a bomb bay before the English Electric Canberra did.
So putting a rotary bomb bay into the B-57 simply made it as good as the XB-51 in that regard, not better.
So if you want to say that the B-57 was a "better choice" than the XB-51, then you need to come up with one or more requirements that the B-57 met that the XB-57 didn't meet or didn't meet as well in some sense, even if the Air Force gave Martin a chance to tweak their design to match said requirements.
And while measuring aircraft performance at the brochure is always a dangerous thing to do (even though would be couch potato aircraft "designers" like to do it), the problem you have to start with is that the XB-51 was "better" than the B-57 in any number of areas.
The XB-51 was faster in level flight, climbed faster, carried more ordinance, and had a combat range that was slightly longer than the B-57 according to the stats given in the Wikipedia entries for these aircraft.
About the only performance measure that the B-57 beat the XB-51 so far as I can tell is service ceiling where the former could fly higher than the latter.
In short, I await with bated breath for you to justify your claim that either of the Canberras (British or American) were in fact a "better choice" than the XB-51.
@@lewiscole5193 Canberra was more reliable as it wasn't stuffed full of innovation. XB-51 would have most likely been a Hangar Queen had it entered service.
@@richardvernon317
> Canberra was more reliable as it wasn't stuffed
> full of innovation.
That's an interesting *GUESS* on you part since the XB-51 never made it into production whereas the English Electric Canberra and B-57 Canberra both did.
And I await with bated breath for you point out those "innovations" that you think would have likely made the XB-51 a "hanger queen" since for the most part, those innovations were things like 3-engines instead of 2 (to compensate for the fact that early U.S. jets weren't that reliable) and a swept back, variable incidence wing, a variant design of which showed up (and worked well) on the A-7 Crusader.
And the engines themselves were actually one of the more reliable engines of their time, the J-47.
And what you also conveniently leave out is that while the Canberra is widely believed to have won the fly-off between the Canberra and XB-51 and it's other competitors, this was in no small part because Air Force was in a hurry to fill a bomber role it thought it needed to be filled right away.
The Air Force apparently originally thought they'd go with the Canberra as an interim solution until the XB-51 was finally ready.
This rush to get a bomber was apparently so great that after the B-57 was apparently picked over the XB-51, when Martin offered some changes to it to make a "Super Canberra" that included among other things, swept back wings so that it could fly faster, the Air Force turned these changes down so that it could avoid the developmental delay.
Would be interesting to cover the CF-100, which you briefly mentioned as part of the Canberra competition
Hey, let's make a seaplane version of a bomber....I know, we'll use this XB-51 that has the jet engines hanging down below the fuselage......
BETTER TITLE: The XB-51 - BEST Bomber that never saw ACTION
But I thought is was a "colossal bomber"?? Now it's a fighter plane?? It was neither, but it was an airplane without a mission.
@@gort8203 fixed!
NEVER seen this thing, and I thought I saw it all!!!! Wtf, I love it!!!!!👍
Looks like something England would have built ....
…what England would have built was the Canberra/B57. 😎
@@Dunk057 All those English planes have that blunt BRUTAL look,
The harrier, the Victor, the Vulcan ect.
@@DUBEE43 Have you seen the nose on a Victor? Certainty not blunt.
@@kelvinfoote9897 True, but I'm thinking head on, looks like a train to me.....
It's an opinion dude, and I'm done explaining myself, good day....
@@DUBEE43 No need to be so tetchy mate. Mine is just an opinion , like yours. Bye
Caberra ( Canbra)
I beg to differ.
The finest bomber never to have been used (Yet) is the TR-3B
You mean the TR-3B?
@@Unloadonyou Indeed 👍
@@6R3YP1L6R1M ohhhh they've been used to fight
This is more from the Tr-2a era. 🔼
Wasn't that canceled when the U.S. was trying to sell the U.K. on the F-104 Starfighter?
1:03 "Despite trial runs and a promising future..." *shows photo of a North American F100 doing a zero length rocket take off*
There's a lot of things that slip by on this channel. Needs and editor.
I really dig the presentation of dark skies, dark docs, etc. however obvious errors keep showing up. I mean, there was a F-100 Super Saber photo.
The XB-51 was not mysteriously canceled. It wasn’t as good as the XB-47 which had twice the range, double the payload for a penalty of about 90 mph.
not that you should expect anyone to just hop right into the SHOW MORE video info, but there is this:
_As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Skies sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect and soundtracks for emotional impact. We do our best to keep it as visually accurate as possible._
that is *not* to say they don't make legitimate errors (regularly, lol), but they kinda covered their ass on this matter.
Too good to be true, situation normal all fouled up. Thanks buracacy...
I'm sorry but the best bomber that never got the fight was the other Martin project. The P6M Seamaster! 😤
Yes Yes Yes!!!!!!!.
There is no mystery about it, don't take my word for it read the official reports of the fly-off between the EE Canberra and the XB-51. The Canberra literally ran rings around it. The only advantage the XB-51 had was it was slightly faster in a straight line, but basically could only fly in a straight line and would have been shot to pieces in any combat situation. Ask any USAF B-57 pilot if they would have liked to go to war in Vietnam in an airplane that took for ever to do a 180!!
When will commentators learn how to pronounce Canberra. Canberra is the capital city of Australia, and the bomber was named after this city. Canberra is pronounced in two syllables, not three. 'Can-bra' (bra as in brat) not Can - bear- a.
To say that the XB51 was a superior aircraft flies in the face of facts. The Canberra bomber served multiple air forces for more than 50 years. For a 1940s design, that is remarkable and shows what an excellent design it was.
Indeed as an Aussie I fully agree.
Please start a petition to have the "er " removed from the name for the rest of us will pronounce it correctly. Those letters have no purpose but to confuse. I have been pronouncing it wrong all these years and have never heard it pronounced any other way. I will from now on pronounce it as "Can-bra" even though I think with three syllables sounds better. I guess it just what one is used too.
@@majorneptunejr 👍 raised a chuckle! So many incidents of reading a name and pronouncing it logically, when the origins use colloquial pronunciations, particularly place names around the globe. English place names are particularly difficult, places like Derby, (pronounced Darby) or Worcestershire (pronounced Woostersheer) , these oddities sometimes transfer to other spheres of influence during colonial times.
I wonder how you could turn that design into a seaplane, with the inlets on those two forward engines being so low in relation to the fuselage.
Ekranoplan Stealth Submarine.
They already had one on the centerline. They'd have had to move the other two above the wing if they were going to use a fly boat type hull- doable, but too much of a stretch to start cutting metal. But it could be done if you wanted it bad enough. Fortunately we had the Brits to make that mistake for everyone.
...oh...you mean the radical new concept of water cooling?
See Martin’s P6M Seamaster for the US Navy. It has a few similarities, particularly the t-tail.
Toward the Unknown (1956) starring William Holden and the B-51...filmed at Edwards.
Check Yeager cameo!
Thank God ot never flew. It was a s big a barn and a huge target.
You've shown me at least a dozen planes that I have never heard of before. One of the best channels on You Tube. Thank you
Mostly just read from Wikipedia ....
You like saying Canberra incorrectly don't you?
Would help if you explained where the pronunciation was wrong "kan·br·uh".
@@shifty7739 CAN-berra vs. can-BERra
Canberra is produced as in the City in Australia; now I understand the problem, even the Aussies cannot say it right.
@@shifty7739 They say it as a 2 syllable word. "e" is silent.
I think the XB-51 should have been put in to servive, Lots of the times the Air Force make realy dumb decisions. They play politics a lot. For example the F117 is F for fighter, when it truly is a stealth attack jet only and should be classed as the A-117 as it was never int1 to be a fighter or the F-111should have been the A-111 as it is just a fast jet attack bomber not a fighter either. All of the so-called problems or short commings with the XB-51 could and would have been addressed and corrected. It was Air Force politics for sure that killed the Martin XB-51.
Bless you, that’s so not how you pronounce “Canberra” @Dark Skies 😄
Interesting video, thanks.
It's not the first time he's encountered words he's too lazy to pronounce correctly.
A lady in my church is from Canberra in Australia. I would guess that is how it got it's name.
@@MrAerocomposites Correct. In development it was designated A.1 but as Australia was the first export customer the production aircraft was named after Australia’s capital city.
back then you needed to use a slide rule and smoke a pipe to be able to design planes
Tweed jacket and leather arm patches, etc. (I have still got my slide rule).
I love the older aircraft, but I had never heard about this particular model. I find this highly interesting.
I think the *B-47* is actually one of the best bombers never to see combat
The XB-51's endurance was poor. Being only just over 1000 miles which is nothing for a bomber . It could only take 3 . 5 G positive , I do not know what it was negative, but it would have been lower . We used to pull 4 g in a high speed turn which was routine . Problems with the airframe , which was weak . Meant landing on out airfields was out . Had a low bomb load . Problems with undercarriage, not been strong enough for the job. The Canberra went on to fly spy missions , right across a large part of Russia . And Canberra , is pronounced, Cam- berr- raa . Not the way you say it !!!!
Obvious major failing: Intake vortices ingesting runway debris.
FOD looking for a place to happen...
No lower than other jets in the era. The inboards of 707s are nearly the same heights. While faster than the B-45, slighty shorter legged and carries half the bombload.
@@beverlychmelik5504 Still, engines up front means more stress on landing gear.
If the B-57 was such a terrible choice then why was it was still in active use as a bomber in Vietnam as late as 1972? A few highly-modified, special-purpose, high-altitude versions of the B-57 were still be in service many years after that. The fact is that the Canberra was a tried-and-tested design that was smaller, lighter, more maneuverable, less expensive to build and maintain and, above all, more versatile. The USAF adapted the B-57 to carry out missions that hadn't even been thought of when it was first designed.
where to you get all of this footage of these planes weve never heard of? I might need to obtain it for a shool project or two
He's a member of a certain Intel community
Google a late-WWII design predecessor of this medium/light bomber design, the Douglas XB-42 'Mixmaster'...
Most of this content on this video is taken right from the Discovery Channel doc on the Canberra. Easily found on youtube.
@@saltypatriot4181 yeah called youtube and i googled it.
I’ve been looking forward to a description of this bomber. Such a cool looking design!
We could make similar arguments for the *B-47* with the top speed of *585mph* or even the *B-58* the top speed of *1300mph*
XB-51 was canceled because of the B-47 being superior in performance, payload, and range
Mystery solved
@@saltypatriot4181 that and the Boeing B-47 was easier to fly, had a tail gun , a better crew survivability
Except it wasn't competing against the B-47 at all; totally different project and requirements.
@@williamminsinger7130 wrong, when Stragtic Air Command was formed , The XB-47 & XB-51 did compete against each other out at The former Castle Air Base in California, it is even on their B-47's information plate
@@troygroomes104 This is simply incorrect; the strategic bomber fly-off competition was between the B-47 and the North American XB-45, Convair XB-46 and Martin's own XB-48. The initial contract for the B-47 was signed in September 1948, a full year before the XB-51 even flew! The XB-51 was built for requirement V-8237-1 which specified low-level bombing and close air support. It was never submitted to the competition for the SAC strategic bomber role.
Oh god that delivery. Geez man I'd watch your videos if you didn't carry on like that.
Involve politics in something and no matter how perfect the product is it will be screwed for sure. 🇺🇲
Meh...B-47 was MUCH better. The XB-51 had terrible range, relatively small bomb load and didn't outperform contemporary Migs like claimed here. Not producing it was the correct choice.
This plane was hardly a "colossal bomber", nor was it remotely close to being "the finest bomber that never went to battle" or "the best American plane never to fight". What BS.
Why the hell was there a picture of an F-100 in STOL tests here? This channel really is frustrating with its constant displaying of aircraft not related to the subject at hand.
I had the same reaction, doesn't the narrator even see the images? Can't tell a bomber from a fighter?
@@randalmontgomery4595 Dark skies has done this in EVERY SINGLE video I have watched.
That is one odd looking aircraft. Nor have I ever heard of this bomber.
You learn something new and very interesting.
What’s with the sped up narrative? Maybe try to speak naturally. It doesn’t add to the content or quality of the video. There’s an option to change the video speed, you know.
So it's more likely that it wasn't one thing that caused the XB-51's demise. Vague ideas of political problems or looks of the aircraft aside, there is questions that always need to be asked. One is how good the design is, and anouther is whether it's a good fit for the air force it is being used in. The XB-51 was well designed as this video does point out. That said, it's an advanced design with some less advanced features. The contemporary aircraft of the time used engines such as the Avro Canada Orenda, Rolls-Royce Avon or Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire, each around 50% more powerful, hence two engined designs vs three. As the engines were of similar weight, this could be seen as a weight penalty to the XB-51. All three of these engines would see increased power over time, or replace engines like the J47 of the XB-51 in other aircraft. The best example of that was the Orenda replacing the J47 in the Sabre, creating what some believe is the best version of that aircraft.
The more serious question is the needs of the air force using it. The goal of the competitions it ended up in was to replace an attack and close support aircraft. In this role operations from less demanding strips, manouverablity, and simplicity (both in production and use) were factors. For this role loiter time is also required. Also this was coming about during the Korean war and with the expectation that not too far away you would have supersonic strike aircraft. So in this situation the Canberra makes a lot of sense. The XB-51 weighed a lot, low power to weight ratio, odd landing gear that is untested on more rougher strips. No matter what, you have questions as to which you can get into production sooner, and there is also the air force at the time wasn't very happy with internal mounted engines in bombers (as seen by some of the other designs). It also less loiter time, and could sustain less g force. Ultimately the role it was designed for wasn't that of an attack aircraft and instead they went with an excellent design in the Canberra.
I would also say that the finest bomber that never saw service was probably the TSR2 though.
TSR2 No doubt about it murder by politicians
No
What's with the f100 at 1:02 seems off topic. How about catching your breath before making your next video.
“The best American plane to never fight.” Yeah, that’s HIGHLY debatable. Gotta get that clickbait in no matter what! Thank God for The History Guy and Mark Felton.
Ahh I see you're a man of culture too.
The word 'best' refers to an opinion. One that may be different from your's.
@@majorneptunejr No. “The best ever” and “the best never” are ultimate superlatives and they are total hyperbole which is the key to clickbait. Stating “in my/our opinion” refers to an opinion.
Always the same, don't pay the right people don't get the contract. Martin's politics were all wrong.
Your work is a great asset to all of us that love aviation!
Very interesting video on the XB-51 because I know next to nothing about this bomber. Unfortunately politics always plays a heavy hand that has nothing to do with technology advances....
Trade you 3 XB-51s for a Martin B-57. (Good to see Martin survived a bit longer despite the XB-51's very short life.)
They are the Martin in Lockheed Martin.
You'd also have to trade in combat range, speed, rate of climb, and bombload for the B-57.
Actually it was a piece of junk with serious tail strike problems, and a massive failing in keeping its center of gravity level when fully loaded. Because of the very short wings the aircraft also had handling problems and a high fuel burn rate when fully loaded. Pilots are noted for calling it a nightmare to land.
My thoughts were that the low-mounted engines would suck up every piece of FOD they came across.
Mysterious political reasons. That says it all about democratic government then, now and probably in times to come.
I always though totalitarian dictatorship was the way forward myself.
Still, maybe next time ;)
IKE didn't like the military industrial complex.
The T-tail was designed by German designer Hans Multhopp, who was also the designer of the Ta-183, which was to use the same tail, without the central bullet nose. Multhopp was working for Martin at the time, and there was some grumbling about German design influence. I wonder if some of that grumbling was due to the swept wings, the German research still being studied at the time.
I assume the 'other' bomber was the Camberra B-57. That was a very good plane and I can see why they wouldn't need to spend the money on both.
Plus martin got to build the canberras so they didnt loose out too badly imo
What was SAC's goals at the time? They had B-45's already flying and were working on the B-47. They nearly bought some RB-48 flying wings. It was clear that the B-51 was going to have a short service life and needed to be deployed as soon as possible or it would end up being obsolete before it became operational. Also in 1955 development of the F-105 started and despite it being tagged with an "F" it was really a bomber and would carry nuclear weapons with mach 2 speed.
I'm guessing that they felt the B-57 would get into production faster and have fewer delays in deployment, giving it a longer useful life before B-58 and F-105's replaced it. I think that the service record of the B-57 tends to prove they made a wise choice. Even Yeager flew them in combat in Vietnam.
TSR2 is probably the best bomber which never actually fought
Looks very similar to an Arado 234 in design, engines in similar place, similar cockpit, and a large jet bomber.
Except that the Amado had just 2 engines, both mounted on the wings ( except the rare 4 engined version) , a large glass fronted nose, rather than a tiny, one man cockpit above the fuselage and 3 engines. The Martin also has anhedral on the wings and a conventional tail rather than a T-tail. All in all, very little like the Arado I have to say.
The Ju 287 had similar forward mounted engines.
@@kelvinfoote9897 Similar placement in position relative to the aircraft I meant, but obviously not the same mounting as you said.
It looks more tupolev than anything American
Looks like a Junkers WWII project
Lol ,yes that too, it was a necessary stepping stone I guess, planes are so goergous now,I guess we're spoiled!
Another interesting video, ty
Pronounced Can Berra, not Can beara, just to be exact. I know you won't mind 👍
My second tour at Edwards AFB I worked on what was main base up until 1954. Every day to and from work I passed through the debris field from Neil Lathrop's crash. There was still quite a bit of small debris fragments scattered for a long distance. RIP.
Pro tip: playing the video at .75 speed will make the narrator sound like an actual human!
Love the channel but this guy's talking annoys me
In England we pronounce Canbera as Canbara,,American's pronounce as Canbeara🙂
In rural Pennsylvania Lancaster is pronounced Lank a stir.
Did I hear in the video correctly when they said 8 cannons (20mm) in the nose as an option? That's a lot of firepower right there.
B-51 wouldn't have stand up against SAMS or Mig's in Vietnam.
The B-51 would not have went into battle unescorted. And other than the occasional SR-71 sortie, there was no combat aircraft immune to SAM attack.
Also 15 years later
@@chikato7106 doesn't matter!
3:37 - "What the airframe lacked in aerodynamic finesse, it made up in sheer engine power." No, it didn't; one of the XB-51's failings was that it was underpowered - a too-long takeoff run is why one of the prototypes crashed on takeoff.
Its wing loading was enormous
That's one of the reasons why the B-47 was chosen
FWIW, according to the Wikipedia entries for the B-47, B-52, and XB-51, the wing loadings of these aircraft are 93.17lbs/ft^2, 120lbs/ft^2, and 105.6lbs/ft^2.
So, yes, the XB-51 had a higher wing loading than the B-47, but less than the B-52.
@Galileo7of9
I have no idea why the B-47 was chosen over the XB-51 (assuming that's even the proper comparison to make).
I was simply pointing out the wing loading of the three aircraft in an attempt to show that I think that the OP's comments about high wing loading are more than a little suspect.
In aerodynamic terms, high wing loading is *NOT* inherently "evil" as the OP and others seem to think.
@@lewiscole5193 But the BUFF is a heavy bomber!
@@IMCDundee
> But the BUFF is a heavy bomber!
Ummm, so what?
Wing loading is determined by not just the weight of the aircraft but the area of the wing which is under the control of the aircraft designer.
All a designer has to do to reduce the wing loading is to increase the area of the wing.
But there is at least one good reason for why a designer would want to increase wing loading, especially in an aircraft thats supposed to fly at high speeds, and that's to reduce the amount of induced drag (i.e. drag due to lift).
And relatively speaking, all of the aircraft that we are talking about, "heavy bomber" or not, were intended to be flown at relatively high speeds (i.e. close to Mach 1) and it shouldn't be all that surprising to see all such aircraft have wing loadings that are "high" compared to similar slower aircraft that flew in WWII, say.
Prejudice against Martin could have existed because of B26. The B26 was rushed into production and combat, at the behest of the Army Air Corp and Congress, and had an early reputation as a widow maker. Like the B51, the B26 was a high performance aircraft ,technologically advanced for it time and ground crews and pilots struggled to keep the birds in the air. After Doolittle took over the project, personally proved the flight characteristics and had both ground crews and pilots trained, the B26 had one of if not the lowest combat loss ratios of the war. Yet at the end of the war virtually all of the B26 where scraped in the field rather than being mothballed. Sound like some politicians may have a score to settle. Looking at the high performance and advanced B51 they may have thought “we not doing that again!” and to our detriment we lost out on an outstanding aircraft.
No the Canberra was just a better aircraft. Sometime it is just that a better plane comes along. And the Air Force couldn’t build both. To bad. It would’ve been cool.
The Canberra was crap. Especially compared the the XB-51
@@kevintemple245 How so? The Canberra outperformed the XB-51 in every parameter except speed.
Like the Avro Arrow, politics and likely graft, played a large role.
Difficult to land, weak landing gear, hard to control on the ground. Much like the heavier contemporary B-47 Stratojet. The Air Force bought the British E.E. Canberra design instead, thankfully...
Canberra was crap compared to the XB-51. Underpowered, poor maneuverability, and could only carry half of the payload. Even Gen. Yeager was surprised the Canberra got the contract over the Martin
And yet pilots lauded the flight characteristics of the B-51. And the following defense analyst disagrees with you. 10:23
WHY?
Why do you show an F100 super Saber @1:00?
it has nothing to do with anything you're talking about
Normal for this goofball
"Mysterious/Political Reasons"
As. In Failure to incluse massive kickbacks in Congressional Funding.
Wow! The 1st Tri-Jet! Very interesting configuration. I think they "missed the boat" on the XB-51! \m/ Great show!
If it had been the competition for the full sized bomber in the 50's? I'd throw a conspiracy theory out that Boeing had a behind the scenes hand in it's demise. It's a shame and even thought the Canberra license brought work to Martin. It had to sting more than just a little to build the plane that knocked your plane outta the running.
Nah. Boeing didn't have a horse in that race. They were already working on the heavy B-52 design
@@kevintemple245 Yeah, that's what I said. "If it had been the competition for the full sized bomber in the 50's?"
It's really too bad the XB-51 didn't get the chance to prove itself in battle. From what little was told here on this video then I think it would have been a real force to be reckoned with. Good looking plane too.
This guys videos always sounds like he's reading a script that he doesn't understand. Lots of content is taken from others videos and then assembled somewhat incoherently together with a script that is taken right out of Janes all world aircraft.
You hit the nail on the head here! This is exactly what it sounds like. He pronounces things in ways that clearly indicate a lack of knowledge of the subject. Like “major Charles Yeager”... there can’t be a single person in the world who has more than a fleeting interest in aviation that doesn’t recognize this as “Chuck” Yeagers real name. But who calls him Charles?! Except perhaps his mother...
@@bennylofgren3208 yeah that was pretty funny. If you watch the discovery documentary on the Canberra (kan-br-ah not can-bare-a as pronounced in this video) you get all the same info on the XB-51 with better emphasis and more concise. Also without all the unnecessary pauses. Lol
Photo envy? So what if he uses footage found elsewhere? I doubt there is much new historical footage being found every week and you must use what you can for contents sake when you produce videos several times a week. Those who do nothing and grouse about others that do are little human beings.
And listening to his voice is painful.
@@ret03man Yeah what I'm talking about is how Dark Skies seems to rip off other creators and does a piss poor job of the part of the content that is his!
Hard to imagine a seaplane variant with that engine configuration.