F.A.Q Section Q: Do you take aircraft requests? A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:) Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others? A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both. Q: Will you include video footage in your videos, or just photos? A: Video footage is very expensive to licence, if I can find footage in the public domain I will try to use it, but a lot of it is hoarded by licencing studies (British Pathe, Periscope films etc). In the future I may be able to afford clips :) Q: Why do you sometimes feature images/screenshots from flight simulators? A: Sometimes there are not a lot of photos available for certain aircraft, so I substitute this with digital images that are as accurate as possible. Feel free to leave you questions below - I may not be able to answer all of them, but I will keep my eyes open :)
Their tiny size also played a role in their survival. A museum with even a modest budget could stash an extremely unique tiny airplane *somewhere* without too much hassle.
@@rogersmith7396 That plane had an accident and sat unrestored for literally decades. They finally restored it after it was moved to its current museum. The thing is that it was restored for STATIC display. It doesn't mean it's flyable. There's a fair chance some structural damage was done to plane after its last accident. It did crash-land if I understand correctly. ... .. A lot of planes on static display cannot fly not just because they haven't been maintained well or have corroded for literally decades but because the services have done things to the planes to ENSURE they will NEVER fly again. I just recently learned the US Navy cut the wingboxes of the remaining F-14 airframes in the US. They compromised the strength of the box so that the plane can't maneuver with any kind of G-loading; the wingbox is the central component that holds the entire F-14 airframe together! There are other reasons why the F-14 will NEVER fly again in the US but that's a big one. I'd call it deliberate vandalism. There are all kinds of things the military does to get its way, to force the taxpayer to pay for new toys for the Pentagon to play with! It's immoral but this is the reality of the military-industrial complex.
@@AvengerII My understanding is the USAF ordered all the engines removed from the publically displayed B 36s. The one being restored in Ft. Worth was going to be flyable but upon transfer to the new owners the engines were ordered removed. Maybe the one in Omaha and Dayton under government control still have their engines, I don't know. I think some of it is due to treaties with USSR and maybe Russia as they are nuclear capable delivery systems. My Friends dad was in the Confederate AF and I visited their center in Harlogen, TX. All of these warbirds were built for government use often designed for short lifespans some like P 38 with significant design deficits. They are hazardous to operate and very expensive to maintain. The B 17 which recently crashed killing several was found to have totally inadequate maintenance due to cost. I follow battleships and they are all demilitarized to some extent. It would take around 2 years to put them back into operation if that was desired. I think the Smithsonian has crates of old planes stored for decades waiting to be restored. I think Bocks Car was only recently restored.
@@rogersmith7396 Bocks Car has been on display for decades at the USAF museum in Dayton. I saw it in the 1980s. It's Enola Gay that was in pieces for decades. What the Smithsonian did to that plane's exhibit in the 1990s was shameful! They finally put it back together for the new Annex at Dulles Airport but it's displayed on risers to keep numbskull activists and insane people from vandalizing that B-29. The only notable bomber that I'm aware of that was recently (within the last 10 years) restored at the USAF Museum was the original B-17 Memphis Belle. The city of Memphis did NOT take care of that plane in the decades it was on outdoor display. It WAS vandalized and the interior was stripped of instruments and graffiti was painted all over the plane by local thugs. Thank goodness the USAF repossessed Memphis Belle and finally restored it! It's on permanent display at the USAF Museum. What you said about the B-36 engines makes sense in light of what you hear what happens to the B-52's that get decommissioned permanently at Davis-Monthan. They guillotine decommissioned, non-museum B-52's so that they don't fly again!
@@AvengerII Thanks for the update. I would have thought EG would have been preserved first since it is far more well known. I was in Memphis once and wanted to go to Mud Island to see it but the tram was closed. Its a real crummy town. There is a completely restored 17 inside with chin turret at Pima. And as I alluded to flying a B 36 would be an ordeal. Two burning, two turning, two smoking. two on fire. Their 36 or 48 cylinders leaked oil like seives and were a severe fire hazard. There is a cutaway of that engine at SAC Omaha. It must have 10,000 parts. I have seen pics of them chopping the wings off 52s. There are only 3 or 4 36s left.
At first I thought that at this pace you're going to run out of aircraft to make your videos about. But seeing how you managed to make the most of even the more obscure aircraft, I can't imagine anything like that anymore. You're a great aircraft historian and I'm looking forward to all your future videos!
I attempted to do the math around the number of planes/aviation topics there are and my upload schedule...I think I'll reach retirement age before I cover everything I want to 😂
This is one of my favorite small aircraft. Had the chance to see it in person and I never stopped loving Parasite planes since. Your video is amazingly detailed into the concept behind this plane!!! Keep up the great videos!
Saw the one in Dayton last summer -- I never really thought much about it before (mostly that it looked "weird"), but when I saw it in person, I "aww"ed out loud and I've ever since loved that adorable little egg...
Around 1940 it was expected England would fall requiring a long range bomber to go from the US to Germany and back. B 36 had 10,000 mile range on internal fuel, around 36 hours in the air.
I've seen the Goblin on display several times at the SAC museum in Nebraska. It's a great museum right off the interstate between Lincoln and Omaha. Many WW2 and Cold War era bombers on display, as well as other fantastic planes and rockets. Thanks for the great presentation, Rex.
Ed Schoch was my father. The narrator mispronounces the family name, as most people do (It rhymes with "choke," but with the soft "s" sound at the beginning, as in "Shhhh… Be quiet" so it's pronounced like "Shoke."). Dad was a decorated WW II Navy combat pilot, and flew several other McDonnell prototypes before he was killed on a test flight in 1951. He has a Wikipedia page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Foresman_Schoch
Very good summary of this cute little guy. You had pictures and videos I had not seen before. I drive by the crumbling McDonnell hanger on the way to work right where a lot of those pictures were taken. Amazing history!
As a former St. Louis McDonnell Douglas person, I both share the interest in this part of the company's history, and am saddened by how the hangar and facilities along Banshee Road are decaying.
(fiction) There's a timeline where after failing the parasite project, McDonnell shifted gears and modified the Goblin to launch from trucks and using rocket assisted takeoff. And able to operate from unprepared locations like fields and roads by replacing the weight of the skid and hook with very short, sturdy, retractable landing gear, and adding a couple of small hard points to the belly for bombs, rockets or gun-pods. the Goblin went on to be a well loved close air support platform and despite being outclassed by newer craft as a fighter, are credited with shooting down several MiGs in dogfights. The ability to launch from just about anywhere, but especially their truck launch system, made them extremely useful for front line defense against attacking aircraft. But it's primary role was as close air support. Able to fly in, deliver a (albeit small) payload and disappear to rearm only to appear just minutes later was of great value to men on the ground. And also beloved of helicopter crews who could depend on the little Goblins to protect them during dangerous ingress and egress of troops. While the tiny jet could only carry two 100# bombs, four 50# bombs, or four 70mm rockets or a single gun-pod (1x minigun, or 2x 50cal, or 1x 20mm with 50rnds). It more than made up for the lack of ordinance with sheer weight of numbers and availability. The low cost of the Goblin meant the army had plenty of them and they swarmed battlefields like angry, killer bees. Eventually replaced by the Goblin 2 near the end of Vietnam, the Goblin series continues to this day with the newly released Goblin 5. Following the same principles as the original, but equipped with modern targeting equipment, the new Goblin 5 isn't much larger but packs a lot more punch.
I really enjoy your videos. Very well explained with good portion of humor. What hell of work to do all the research and editing before showing us the final result. I enjoy them all. Thank you for your efforts which always puts in. Beside me as a German working since 40years on aircraft it is a joy to learn a lot about historical planes. And just so also more about English language while watching.
I love weird aircraft designs. This little plane definitely fits the bill. With modern computers this idea could be revisited with a parasite drone fighter.
For my 13th birthday on December 17th 1966 my Mother dropped me of at the Movieland of the Air Museum at Orange County Airport that was owned and run by Talmantz Aviation. In the aircraft bone yard that was next to the main building they had among other planes a complete XF-85 Goblin parasite fighter and I remember quite fondly standing on the port wing and staring through the plexiglass canopy and marvelling that a pilot could actually fit into that little aluminum foot ball and that the plane could actually fly. Of the three units built this was article number 524 which now resides in fully restored condition at the SAC museum in Omaha.
I've heard of parasite fighters before, and even the Goblin. But not until watching this did I picture the wacky air battle that we never got to see. High-altitude jet interceptors, those sleek engines with a cockpit as an afterthought, against odd little designs like this, shape severely limitited by living in a bomb bay.
@@rogersmith7396 In reality, sure. Please do join me here in fantasyland where a more evolved version of this idea has a wild swarming air battle with early jet fighters in the wake of a gigantic bomber formation.
@@johnladuke6475 If you like fantasy the F 106 was given an unguided nuclear missle called Genie to blast fleets of Tupolevs out of the sky over Nebraska. The B 36 was flown with an experimental nuclear reactor. It was then pointed out it would have no bomb load if it carried the reactor. The hole in the head bomber. End of program.
@@rogersmith7396 Again with this inconvenient reality. Take all of those ideas and imagine that they worked flawlessly. Goblins dropping from nuclear-powered B-36s, why not? Really if nuclear insanity is your thing, I think the idea of nuclear-payload artillery shells to be peak cold war lunacy. "Let's drop a mushroom cloud on somebody close enough to wave to us."
I live in Nebraska and went to the Strategic Air and Space museum multiple times when I was a kid. I remember seeing this tiny aircraft but never knew what it was. Great video!
In KSP I've been experimenting with a plane that's essentially the empennage of a much larger aircraft - not quite a "parasitic" aircraft. :) I'm loving your videos. I wish I could see a Goblin IRL.
Very, very interesting. Those development guys along with the hero test pilots just kept pushing the boundaries of research didn't they. I salute them and all involved.
the US original parasite fighters weren’t actually being used by bombers: they were being used by US Navy rigid airships…no bombs carried, they were observation platforms and they carried a full squadron within them, there were essentially flying aircraft carriers: the inspiration for Marvel’s helicarriers
@@jehoiakimelidoronila5450 they were proven to work…but the advancement of planes plus the airships crashing due to issues not related to the planes made the idea of using the fighters and scout planes pointless
The XF-85 probably would've been deadly in combat. While it was about 100 mph slower than other jet fighters, it's diminutive size would've made it nigh impossible to hit, and it's responsiveness would've allowed it to easily outmaneuver its opponents.
Plus, it's whole purpose was to protect the bombers, so the enemy would have to come to them. If they run away from the goblins, then they are not attacking the bombers.
I've checked some of the Archives I have available here in St. Louis. The XF-85 had a fuel tank capacity of 115 gal (435 liters). However, with the inevitable trapped fuel, I believe Rex's data of 420 liters (111 gal) is most likely the correct usable fuel. Thanks again Rex for the excellent work.
Hey man I've watched a few of your videos now, and I just have to say you put out some amazing content. I just subscribed and I hope to continue to enjoy your videos, and more like me find you!
Loving the video footage. Also love this daft, amazing little bird. Never heard of it before, but it's now right up there with my favourite planes. It's just so unique and cute.
One of the first things I always look at on my frequent trips to the Airforce Museum is the Goblin. It's so tiny in a museum with huge planes like a B-36 and Valkyrie displayed indoors but still impressive.
I've seen the one at the museum in Nebraska, where it's displayed next to their B-36. The concept probably would have worked better with a B-36, since the wash of the pusher props would be aft of the front bomb bay. Still wouldn't have wanted to take on a MiG-15 in one, though... that was probably the biggest factor in killing the idea.
I just can't see the use case and am surprised this project went forward without someone in high command noticing that the B-36s would be intercepted by multiple enemy fighters, not just a couple. IIRC we never had enough B-36s to fly in mass formations that could carry enough of these, even with the 3-plane B-36s. And yes, the MiG-15. It was a surprise - but mostly a surprise it was developed so soon. They had to know something like this was inevitable, they knew Russia had access to the same German data as the US did (IIRC). Anyway, it was basically impossible that within a couple/few years after operational deployment the Goblin would be outclassed by jets whose design wasn't compromised by the needs of being a parasite aircraft.
@@donjones4719 Wikipedia says 384 B-36es were produced, and even in the late 1940s there were a lot of adherents in the USAF to the prewar idea that “the bomber will always get through.” So I figure there was a brief window of plausibility for the idea that carrying F-85s along might have usefully improved the odds of a few B-36es making it to the target (and the Cold War mindset was that you only needed a few to make it when they were carrying H-bombs.) Real-life experience with the RB-36 reconnaissance variant showed that the B-36 could actually outmaneuver Soviet interceptors at its very high operating altitude, thanks to its immense wing area, so I still think the XF-85 wasn't a silly idea.. just an impractical idea…
Heavy bombers are of course woefully obsolete and aerial refueling of fighters gives them theoretically unlimited range but I still find parasitical aircraft are such a cool concept and I wonder if we'll see them in the form of some kind of drone in the future.
I was aware of some Goblin history but you were (as usual) far more thorough and interesting. The Thunderflash, however, is an aircraft I've never heard of before. I'm looking forward to the day you cover it.
and the FICON version of the RF-84 wasn't alone. They also built versions of regular F-84s that would hitch a ride while attached wingtip to wingtip to a B-36. I've once seen a photo of the entire 4 ship combination in flight (the F-84s would take off normally and attach in the air), looked impressive if insane.
There is one on display at the S A C Aerospace Museum located between Omaha and Lincoln Nebraska just off of interstate 80. There is also a B-30 six on display there that has a cradle in the Bombay that this aircraft would attach itself to. The museum is a worthwhile stop.
Chuck Yeager had a story about the Goblin in his book. The testing of the trapeze with the Goblin was not done by pilots used to flying in close formations
I was fascinated by parasite airplanes since I first saw pics of one long ago. IIRC it was to an American airship. As a youngster I loved every cool idea in aviation I came across and couldn't understand why some of them weren't adopted. But even then I could see why this one wasn't. And attached to an airplane was an even worse idea.
Pretty sure the first time I ever saw a parasite fighter was in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, when Indy and his father escape from a Nazi dirigible using the attached biplane fighter.
Yes, YES, it is very much a winged potato ¡☆! I'm going to prepare wings and stabilizers for next dinner, to include a baked potato; I expect it will fly right off my 'plate!☆¡ 😜
Seeing the rear mounted props on the thunderflash image at 15:12 was very satesfying after thinking ”Why don’t we just take the props, and push them somewhere else!” As I’m sure many of us thought watching this ;D
Hi Rex! You’ve probably seen me around here before, but I was wondering if you could cover the prototypical Focke Wulf TA-183 Jet aircraft? It has an interesting history, and it’s very closely related to the Swedish Saab 29 in terms of looks, and was also the basis of Argentina’s first fighter jet ever. Thanks!
4:15 You forgot the Curtiss XP-55, another pusher design intended for the same P&W X-1800 engine as the Northrop XP-56. The Curtiss was even more radical with wingtip rudders and canards. The sweep angle was 32 degrees.
I think the irony is that if you can hook a parasite fighter back to a mothership, you can hook it up to a tube to deliver fuel. The problem to solve has always been the ability to connect one plane with another in the air. The parasite fighter is just air refueling with extra steps.
Yeah, but those "extra steps" were the downfall of the parasite fighter while aerial refueling is a thing. So those "extra steps" proved to be an insoluble problem
I think this is a genuinely good idea. the best move would have been going with a 5 plane flying type Aircraft carrier. Having a purpose built aircraft made to launch and recover fighters instead of trying to shoe horn the fighter into an existing design.
The XP 55 also had swept wings. America was aware of the advantages of a swept wing. They were just also aware of the disadvantages. The ME 262 only had such a sweep because they did the math wrong on the center of gravity and had to move the engine nacelles back without redesigning the wing roots. I cite Greg's Airplanes and automobiles.
Great video explaining the theory and ultimate reality (failure) of the goblin. But I do think that the turbulence issue during retrieval operations might have been less with the B-36 than with the B-29. It had pusher propellors, thus their corkscrew airstream would have been behind the launch trapeze. Also the distance from the nose to the launch location would have been longer, this might have reduced wake turbulence.
When you want to make a fighter to fit in a bomb bay, use Fat Man as the starting shape. Cool little plane idea. Coming back to the hanger must have been scary.
I have seen one of these before. In the criminally under applicated SAC museum in Ashland Nebraska. You can see this and a B-36 and an avro Vulcan and an SR-71. Definitely the most underrated/under applicated air museum in the US
Fascinating as always, thanks. Are you sure, though, that it pre-dates the German experimental data becoming available? It does look an awful lot like a much-improved, jet-powered Komet.
The other nail in the coffin for the XF-85 was that the USAF decided to go all-in with development of aerial refueling in 1948, making the Goblin not worth the hassle.
A XF-85 Is on display at the SAC Aerospace Museum between Omaha and Lincoln, Nebraska along interstate 80. The museum also has on display a B-36 with the harness for the goblin inside one of the bombays. Go to aircraft are inside and undercover. The museum is also beginning the process of rehabilitating a British Vulcan bomber.
"Ooooooooh I'm just a small little goblin, nooooo! Please don't fire your cannon I will die to just one attack! I only have three potential pilots please sir I will not drop good intel, NOOOOO YOUR CANNON IS SO STRONG I AM LEVEL ONE GOBLIN I DO NOT KNOW WHY I GUARD THIS BOMBER OOOOH"
The only aircraft designed and built to carry other aircraft were the Akron and Macon airships. The picture ~1:28 is a Sparrowhawk F9C-2 on the Macon's trapeze. I wonder if the Goblin is the only aircraft designed and built as pure parasite. Built is the operative word here. The B-36 was a really big airplane. Have you done a video on that one?
I know I've seen multiple people in the ace combat community bring up a "WWI/WWII" era ace combat. And this plane would be like the prequel to the MQ-99, MQ-101, and the arsenal bird.
The cost of the XF-85 program was very high, so the < 3 hours of flight time made the cost/hour astonishing. When the hook recess was faired over for early tests, the handling was tolerable, but when the hook was actually extended, the recess generated turbulence.
I've seen both of these in person. When you're standing next to them you can't help but wonder how anyone crammed themselves into one for a ride. They're like Minis with wings but more bare.
3:30 -- RE: the 3-view technical drawings; its funny, but the Goblin is evocative of 2 WW2-era German designs. The tail and the bulbous aspect reminds me of the He-162, while the Pilot riding right on top of the jet engine makes me think of the Me-163. Granted, there's a significant amount of squinting required to really see it, but consider what the proportion of its wing and control surfaces areas is with respect to the size and power of the engine. The Me-163 only has a vertical tail surface plus rudder; no elevators, it's a bit like a flying wing with a lawn-dart engine strapped on, where the Pilot is above and forward of the exploding part.
A lot of the thing's im seeing on this channel are things I learned of as a kid with my dad, and had almost forgotten of by now... nostalgia bonus points for ?Rex?
My folks took us children to the Wright- Patterson Air Force Museum. I was young and clearly recall crawling through the tube between the front and rear in the B29 that was on static display. I have a much more vauge recollection of seeing the Goblin. Jo I have a clear recollection of seeing a parasite fighter that was to be used with a ridgid airship, unfortunately I don't recall anything else about that airplane.* Finally, I recall the The Kettering Bug. an early attempt at a remote control flying bomb. * Apparently the Curtis's F9C Sparrowhawk.
The idea of parasite fighters has always fascinated me. I know the Japanese attempted launching kamikaze rocket planes from bombers, but I don't know why the Germans (who were very experimental) didn't consider such for the Me 163. Short burn time for fuel and most of it used getting to altitude. Have them already up there, carried by a Ju 88, cruising high, ready to release and intercept.
You'd think they'd have used air launches like that for testing and training at least, the same way the USAF dropped their rocket planes from altitude. In combat though the transport would be a sitting duck to all the fighter sweeps towards the end of the war, and there was a massive shortage of multi engine planes that could lift one.
Strategic Air Command & Aerospace Museum in Ashland, NE near Omaha has or had a Goblin on display. We visited the museum years ago, so I'm not sure if it is still there.
I wonder if the question of control sensitivity during docking could have been addressed by adding on some kind of control baffle system that decreased the sensitivity of the controls; i.e. a switch that somehow cut the sensitivity in half or by a third.
The real contribution of the parasitic fighter program was the all about the turbulence around an airframe. The aerial refueling tanker revisited many of the same issues and surprisingly many were resolved after some limitations were accepted. The most impressive advancement was made for the US Marines, who flew two Harriers up to a KC-130 for refueling missions. It was clear that no marsupial flight even existed in nature, although there were some examples of in-flight passage of food between birds, so parasitic concepts were only retained in land and sea vehicles, where examples existed in nature.
From the point of WW2 thru the Cold War, the USAAF(now USAF) explored many eventualities, including conventional and unconventional(nuclear) combat. It also contemplated scenarios where we stood alone, and others where we weren't. If we had had to operate alone in a hostile(i.e. conquered) world, we'd need self-sufficient long-range aircraft, which led to the Goblin(your carried along fighter escort) as well as nuclear powered aircraft(before refueling was perfected) and finally space weapons.
I have known about these aircraft for some time so it is great to finally get more detail about them. Thanks for that. The concept of attaching fighters to bigger aircraft does go back quite far. I know the USAAF did attach fighters to an airship after WW1, as you showed in your video, and I believe the British did contemplate the using the same idea during WW1 but it did not come to fruition. I cannot remember if the British wanted to use them like America planned to do with the XF-85 or to take fighters up to altitude ready to deal with German Zeppelins attacking Britain like flying aircraft carriers. As the German airforce stopped using Zeppelins in favour of fixed wing aircraft, bad weather causing too many Zeppelins to turn back or attack secondary targets instead, this may have brought an end to the idea of flying aircraft carriers.
G'day, The AmeriKans, during the 1930s, were COPYING what the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service started doing in 1917 and 1918, suspending Sopwith Camels under Rigid Airships for use as Defensive Fighters during long range maritime patrols. Not used in Combat..., but they had a lot of fun with it, and revisited the idea in the 1920s. According to Chuck Yeager the only problem with the Goblin was that the Civilian Test Pilot who repeatedly crashed it into the Trapeze had NEVER Ever recieved ANY Training in Formation Flying, or how to manage Closure-Rates. Yeager reckoned that if ANY Military-trained Test Pilots had been in the Goblin then the Test Retrievals would have caused no problems whatsoever. I dunno...., but Yeager is a difficult Authority to attempt to refute. Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
I don't know about the USAAF, but the US Navy certainly was interested in this concept well past WW1. The last "flying aircraft carrier" was the USS Macon, commissioned in 1933, and subsequently lost in 1935.
@@WarblesOnALot I thought they had flown Camels from airships but I was not sure and it had been sometime since I came across it. So thanks for that. It is interesting to know what Yeager thought of the Goblin. Military pilots and civilian pilots are definatelly two different breeds. Military pilots do tend to be less risk averse and are trained in ways civilian pilots are not. Having said that even military trained test pilots sometime duck out.I once met a test pilot, ex-Royal Navy, who was one of four sent to make the first carrier landing with the Blackburn Buccaneer. The weather was so bad that the other three decided not to make the landing and flew home. He made the landing and became the first to make a carrier landing with the Buccaneer. I am sure you will have come across the description of a carrier landing being like landing on top of a 100 foot cliff in a hurricane and on a slippery surface, or something like that. So you can imagine what it took in weather so bad that three ex-Royal Navy test pilots would not land on it.
@@FolgoreCZ Thanks. I had a feeling it was the US Navy but for some reason I assumed I was mistaken so went for the USAAF. Of course being a carrier it had to be the US Navy.
@@bigblue6917 Yeah, the idea of building an Aerodrome on top of an Ocean-going Ship has always struck me as being a hubristically stupid Bad Idea which has been done very cleverly...; despite the whole proposition being literally as Mad as a Meat-Axe...! I once tried a Downwind Takeoff in an Ultralight Motorglider, in a 200 yard Paddock..., and while I still limp and use a Walking-Stick - and have not yet begun to repair the Motorglider ; so I'm known to have tried some foolish stuff - but landing on a Boat is for people whose Control-Freak tendencies are far beyond mine. Yeager maintained that Civilian Test Pilots received zero training in Close Formation Flying, and that attempting to fly the Goblin onto that Trapeze as one's first attempt at Close Formation was, frankly, stupid. But there was some kind of Demarcation Dispute, so the Manufacturers had to flight test their products before letting the Military have a go. Yeager maintained that the Goblin was good but it's Pilot had Dunning Kreuger effect, being too ignorant about Close Formation Technique to be able to realise how much he did not know about what he was attempting to achieve. So, a good Aeroplane was broken, twice ; and the whole Project was cancelled. Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
I think it's interesting that the concept worked better with the Macon and Sparrowhawks! The airship seems to have made for a better carrier- I bet the slow speed and lack of aerodynamic lift means they didn't cause the turbulence issue as badly.
![Why The US Navy Built A Fighter Jet On Skis | Convair F2Y Sea Dart [Aircraft Overview #72]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DUpUpq9lhqY/mqdefault.jpg)
![Why The US Navy Built A Fighter Jet On Skis | Convair F2Y Sea Dart [Aircraft Overview #72]](/img/tr.png)
![The Bomber That Inspired A Generation Of Giant Aircraft | Tupolev ANT-4 [Aircraft Overview #26]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TFODWvM_I-E/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Super-Fighter That Was Betrayed By Its Engine | Vultee XP-54 [Aircraft Overview #68]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EhKenDU-dyY/mqdefault.jpg)
![Polikarpov I-16 "Ishak" | The Revolutionary Russian Fighter [Aircraft Overview #12]](/img/1.gif)
F.A.Q Section
Q: Do you take aircraft requests?
A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:)
Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others?
A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both.
Q: Will you include video footage in your videos, or just photos?
A: Video footage is very expensive to licence, if I can find footage in the public domain I will try to use it, but a lot of it is hoarded by licencing studies (British Pathe, Periscope films etc). In the future I may be able to afford clips :)
Q: Why do you sometimes feature images/screenshots from flight simulators?
A: Sometimes there are not a lot of photos available for certain aircraft, so I substitute this with digital images that are as accurate as possible.
Feel free to leave you questions below - I may not be able to answer all of them, but I will keep my eyes open :)
How about the Douglas XB-19 Heavy Bomber?
Rockwell star-raker, F-106X or F-106 Sky Scorcher, Convair Kingfish, Avro 707(or Type 707)
Gloster javillin
I see your obscure terrifying concept airplane and raise you an even more terrifying hydra foil airplane!
Sea Dart when?
I feel like the ‘big brother’ of the goblin deserves a vid… any chance we could see something on the Northrop XP-56 Black Bullet?
I remember hearing of a tiny plane that you didn't sit in but the pilot lay down over?
Their tiny size also played a role in their survival. A museum with even a modest budget could stash an extremely unique tiny airplane *somewhere* without too much hassle.
You can look inside one at Omaha. Its probably ready to go. Only a few minutes on the clock.
@@rogersmith7396 That plane had an accident and sat unrestored for literally decades.
They finally restored it after it was moved to its current museum.
The thing is that it was restored for STATIC display. It doesn't mean it's flyable. There's a fair chance some structural damage was done to plane after its last accident. It did crash-land if I understand correctly.
...
..
A lot of planes on static display cannot fly not just because they haven't been maintained well or have corroded for literally decades but because the services have done things to the planes to ENSURE they will NEVER fly again. I just recently learned the US Navy cut the wingboxes of the remaining F-14 airframes in the US. They compromised the strength of the box so that the plane can't maneuver with any kind of G-loading; the wingbox is the central component that holds the entire F-14 airframe together! There are other reasons why the F-14 will NEVER fly again in the US but that's a big one. I'd call it deliberate vandalism.
There are all kinds of things the military does to get its way, to force the taxpayer to pay for new toys for the Pentagon to play with!
It's immoral but this is the reality of the military-industrial complex.
@@AvengerII My understanding is the USAF ordered all the engines removed from the publically displayed B 36s. The one being restored in Ft. Worth was going to be flyable but upon transfer to the new owners the engines were ordered removed. Maybe the one in Omaha and Dayton under government control still have their engines, I don't know. I think some of it is due to treaties with USSR and maybe Russia as they are nuclear capable delivery systems. My Friends dad was in the Confederate AF and I visited their center in Harlogen, TX. All of these warbirds were built for government use often designed for short lifespans some like P 38 with significant design deficits. They are hazardous to operate and very expensive to maintain. The B 17 which recently crashed killing several was found to have totally inadequate maintenance due to cost. I follow battleships and they are all demilitarized to some extent. It would take around 2 years to put them back into operation if that was desired. I think the Smithsonian has crates of old planes stored for decades waiting to be restored. I think Bocks Car was only recently restored.
@@rogersmith7396 Bocks Car has been on display for decades at the USAF museum in Dayton. I saw it in the 1980s.
It's Enola Gay that was in pieces for decades. What the Smithsonian did to that plane's exhibit in the 1990s was shameful!
They finally put it back together for the new Annex at Dulles Airport but it's displayed on risers to keep numbskull activists and insane people from vandalizing that B-29.
The only notable bomber that I'm aware of that was recently (within the last 10 years) restored at the USAF Museum was the original B-17 Memphis Belle. The city of Memphis did NOT take care of that plane in the decades it was on outdoor display. It WAS vandalized and the interior was stripped of instruments and graffiti was painted all over the plane by local thugs.
Thank goodness the USAF repossessed Memphis Belle and finally restored it! It's on permanent display at the USAF Museum.
What you said about the B-36 engines makes sense in light of what you hear what happens to the B-52's that get decommissioned permanently at Davis-Monthan. They guillotine decommissioned, non-museum B-52's so that they don't fly again!
@@AvengerII Thanks for the update. I would have thought EG would have been preserved first since it is far more well known. I was in Memphis once and wanted to go to Mud Island to see it but the tram was closed. Its a real crummy town. There is a completely restored 17 inside with chin turret at Pima. And as I alluded to flying a B 36 would be an ordeal. Two burning, two turning, two smoking. two on fire. Their 36 or 48 cylinders leaked oil like seives and were a severe fire hazard. There is a cutaway of that engine at SAC Omaha. It must have 10,000 parts. I have seen pics of them chopping the wings off 52s. There are only 3 or 4 36s left.
At first I thought that at this pace you're going to run out of aircraft to make your videos about. But seeing how you managed to make the most of even the more obscure aircraft, I can't imagine anything like that anymore. You're a great aircraft historian and I'm looking forward to all your future videos!
I attempted to do the math around the number of planes/aviation topics there are and my upload schedule...I think I'll reach retirement age before I cover everything I want to 😂
@@RexsHangar Don't forget to include new developments that may occur over that time period as well
This is one of my favorite small aircraft. Had the chance to see it in person and I never stopped loving Parasite planes since. Your video is amazingly detailed into the concept behind this plane!!! Keep up the great videos!
Saw the one in Dayton last summer -- I never really thought much about it before (mostly that it looked "weird"), but when I saw it in person, I "aww"ed out loud and I've ever since loved that adorable little egg...
It's amazing that both this and the B-36 were in the works before the end of WW2!
same with jet planes, they were already drawing the next generation while the current generation were fighting hard
Around 1940 it was expected England would fall requiring a long range bomber to go from the US to Germany and back. B 36 had 10,000 mile range on internal fuel, around 36 hours in the air.
I've seen the Goblin on display several times at the SAC museum in Nebraska. It's a great museum right off the interstate between Lincoln and Omaha. Many WW2 and Cold War era bombers on display, as well as other fantastic planes and rockets. Thanks for the great presentation, Rex.
Ya grew up there lots of field trips lol. Amazing stuff sr71 b1 other large bombers it's been years.
Ed Schoch was my father. The narrator mispronounces the family name, as most people do (It rhymes with "choke," but with the soft "s" sound at the beginning, as in "Shhhh… Be quiet" so it's pronounced like "Shoke."). Dad was a decorated WW II Navy combat pilot, and flew several other McDonnell prototypes before he was killed on a test flight in 1951. He has a Wikipedia page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Foresman_Schoch
Thanks for the correction on the name, I'll do my absolute best to remember that when I eventually cover the XF-88!
@@RexsHangar I don't speak German, so I can't vouch for it, but I'm told it's pretty close to the original Bavarian.
Dangerous job.
@@rayschoch5882 In "standard" German, "Schoch" would rhyme with the Scottich "loch" (short vowel), but I don't know the Bavarian accent at all.
Your father is a badass. Test pilot is one of the coolest jobs one could possibly have. I am sorry that this job took him from you far too early.
One of my favorites.. thanks for showcasing the Goblin. As a B36 nut, this is right up my alley.
Very good summary of this cute little guy. You had pictures and videos I had not seen before. I drive by the crumbling McDonnell hanger on the way to work right where a lot of those pictures were taken. Amazing history!
As a former St. Louis McDonnell Douglas person, I both share the interest in this part of the company's history, and am saddened by how the hangar and facilities along Banshee Road are decaying.
@@SkyhawkSteve agree. It is really bad.
I’ve always loved this concept. A jet engine with wings!
Yeah, an expensive suicide plane.
More from The Hanger.
Thanks Rex!
The FICON project also included "Tip tow", where they tested hooking F-84s on the wingtips of bombers. Please do a video on that if you can.
If I remember right THAT had some extremely negative results, as in both fighter trying to attach and the B36 itself all crashing!
I've got a couple of books about the FICON project, so there will be a whole video covering that crazy adventure :)
@@RexsHangar I look very forward to seeing them!!
I love that at this point in history many test flights were filmed and preserved. So neat to see. Thanks!!
The best way to summarize this parasite program is: "Damn lucky no one got killed."
(fiction)
There's a timeline where after failing the parasite project, McDonnell shifted gears and modified the Goblin to launch from trucks and using rocket assisted takeoff. And able to operate from unprepared locations like fields and roads by replacing the weight of the skid and hook with very short, sturdy, retractable landing gear, and adding a couple of small hard points to the belly for bombs, rockets or gun-pods. the Goblin went on to be a well loved close air support platform and despite being outclassed by newer craft as a fighter, are credited with shooting down several MiGs in dogfights. The ability to launch from just about anywhere, but especially their truck launch system, made them extremely useful for front line defense against attacking aircraft. But it's primary role was as close air support. Able to fly in, deliver a (albeit small) payload and disappear to rearm only to appear just minutes later was of great value to men on the ground. And also beloved of helicopter crews who could depend on the little Goblins to protect them during dangerous ingress and egress of troops. While the tiny jet could only carry two 100# bombs, four 50# bombs, or four 70mm rockets or a single gun-pod (1x minigun, or 2x 50cal, or 1x 20mm with 50rnds). It more than made up for the lack of ordinance with sheer weight of numbers and availability. The low cost of the Goblin meant the army had plenty of them and they swarmed battlefields like angry, killer bees. Eventually replaced by the Goblin 2 near the end of Vietnam, the Goblin series continues to this day with the newly released Goblin 5. Following the same principles as the original, but equipped with modern targeting equipment, the new Goblin 5 isn't much larger but packs a lot more punch.
I really enjoy your videos. Very well explained with good portion of humor. What hell of work to do all the research and editing before showing us the final result.
I enjoy them all. Thank you for your efforts which always puts in. Beside me as a German working since 40years on aircraft it is a joy to learn a lot about historical planes. And just so also more about English language while watching.
Again, thanks for giving us these awesome history lessons as I can't imagine the time in just research much less editing and all that.
I love weird aircraft designs. This little plane definitely fits the bill. With modern computers this idea could be revisited with a parasite drone fighter.
For my 13th birthday on December 17th 1966 my Mother dropped me of at the Movieland of the Air Museum at Orange County Airport that was owned and run by Talmantz Aviation. In the aircraft bone yard that was next to the main building they had among other planes a complete XF-85 Goblin parasite fighter and I remember quite fondly standing on the port wing and staring through the plexiglass canopy and marvelling that a pilot could actually fit into that little aluminum foot ball and that the plane could actually fly. Of the three units built this was article number 524 which now resides in fully restored condition at the SAC museum in Omaha.
I've heard of parasite fighters before, and even the Goblin. But not until watching this did I picture the wacky air battle that we never got to see. High-altitude jet interceptors, those sleek engines with a cockpit as an afterthought, against odd little designs like this, shape severely limitited by living in a bomb bay.
The bombers would attack in force and one or two would carry Goblins instead of bombs. Pilot should know how to speak Russian.
@@rogersmith7396 In reality, sure. Please do join me here in fantasyland where a more evolved version of this idea has a wild swarming air battle with early jet fighters in the wake of a gigantic bomber formation.
@@johnladuke6475 If you like fantasy the F 106 was given an unguided nuclear missle called Genie to blast fleets of Tupolevs out of the sky over Nebraska. The B 36 was flown with an experimental nuclear reactor. It was then pointed out it would have no bomb load if it carried the reactor. The hole in the head bomber. End of program.
Oh, and look up the Chrysler nuclear tank prototype in the 1950s. They were trying hard to give us all nukes.
@@rogersmith7396 Again with this inconvenient reality. Take all of those ideas and imagine that they worked flawlessly. Goblins dropping from nuclear-powered B-36s, why not?
Really if nuclear insanity is your thing, I think the idea of nuclear-payload artillery shells to be peak cold war lunacy. "Let's drop a mushroom cloud on somebody close enough to wave to us."
I live in Nebraska and went to the Strategic Air and Space museum multiple times when I was a kid. I remember seeing this tiny aircraft but never knew what it was. Great video!
A great summary of the short and eventful career of this weird little airplane. Thanks for the video!
I've always loved and the Convair XFY Pogo. Two of the weirdest and interesting aircraft.
In KSP I've been experimenting with a plane that's essentially the empennage of a much larger aircraft - not quite a "parasitic" aircraft. :)
I'm loving your videos. I wish I could see a Goblin IRL.
Very, very interesting. Those development guys along with the hero test pilots just kept pushing the boundaries of research didn't they. I salute them and all involved.
the US original parasite fighters weren’t actually being used by bombers: they were being used by US Navy rigid airships…no bombs carried, they were observation platforms
and they carried a full squadron within them, there were essentially flying aircraft carriers: the inspiration for Marvel’s helicarriers
And that one scout plane from one of the airships spotted the fleet 1st during an exercise
@@jehoiakimelidoronila5450 they were proven to work…but the advancement of planes plus the airships crashing due to issues not related to the planes made the idea of using the fighters and scout planes pointless
You can see a picture of one at 1:30 from the Macon for those who are curious.
@@bostonrailfan2427 The Navy seemed to have a habit of flying airships in stormy weather.
"Those daring young men on the Flying Trapeze."
The XF-85 probably would've been deadly in combat. While it was about 100 mph slower than other jet fighters, it's diminutive size would've made it nigh impossible to hit, and it's responsiveness would've allowed it to easily outmaneuver its opponents.
Plus, it's whole purpose was to protect the bombers, so the enemy would have to come to them. If they run away from the goblins, then they are not attacking the bombers.
@@kdrapertrucker I second that motion! 🤠👍
The weaponry isn't much to write home about though, just four fifty-cals.
@@akmzd6938 Four closely placed 50 cals is more than sufficient to Rip the Guts out of any MIG it would have an encountered at that time!!! 🤠👌
@@worldtraveler930 Just wouldn't have stayed relevant more than a few years, alas...
I actually work with 46-0524 based at the Strategic Air Command and Aerospace museum in Ashland, Nebraska, USA
Always love an evening upload
I've checked some of the Archives I have available here in St. Louis. The XF-85 had a fuel tank capacity of 115 gal (435 liters). However, with the inevitable trapped fuel, I believe Rex's data of 420 liters (111 gal) is most likely the correct usable fuel. Thanks again Rex for the excellent work.
1:31 - F9C Sparrowhawk. Worth noting that these were operated from the airships USS Macon and USS Akron.
Wonderful summary and video.
Keep up the great work 😊👍
Hey man I've watched a few of your videos now, and I just have to say you put out some amazing content. I just subscribed and I hope to continue to enjoy your videos, and more like me find you!
Great video. I always thought the _Goblin_ was quite 'funky looking'.
Loving the video footage. Also love this daft, amazing little bird. Never heard of it before, but it's now right up there with my favourite planes. It's just so unique and cute.
Very interesting! First time I've heard of parasite fighters.
One of the first things I always look at on my frequent trips to the Airforce Museum is the Goblin. It's so tiny in a museum with huge planes like a B-36 and Valkyrie displayed indoors but still impressive.
What a stunning little plane!
I've seen the one at the museum in Nebraska, where it's displayed next to their B-36. The concept probably would have worked better with a B-36, since the wash of the pusher props would be aft of the front bomb bay. Still wouldn't have wanted to take on a MiG-15 in one, though... that was probably the biggest factor in killing the idea.
In flight refueling also helped kill this idea.
I just can't see the use case and am surprised this project went forward without someone in high command noticing that the B-36s would be intercepted by multiple enemy fighters, not just a couple. IIRC we never had enough B-36s to fly in mass formations that could carry enough of these, even with the 3-plane B-36s.
And yes, the MiG-15. It was a surprise - but mostly a surprise it was developed so soon. They had to know something like this was inevitable, they knew Russia had access to the same German data as the US did (IIRC). Anyway, it was basically impossible that within a couple/few years after operational deployment the Goblin would be outclassed by jets whose design wasn't compromised by the needs of being a parasite aircraft.
@@donjones4719 Wikipedia says 384 B-36es were produced, and even in the late 1940s there were a lot of adherents in the USAF to the prewar idea that “the bomber will always get through.” So I figure there was a brief window of plausibility for the idea that carrying F-85s along might have usefully improved the odds of a few B-36es making it to the target (and the Cold War mindset was that you only needed a few to make it when they were carrying H-bombs.) Real-life experience with the RB-36 reconnaissance variant showed that the B-36 could actually outmaneuver Soviet interceptors at its very high operating altitude, thanks to its immense wing area, so I still think the XF-85 wasn't a silly idea.. just an impractical idea…
@@donjones4719 There is a vid by a B 36 crewman. He states they used to sleep when flying over Russia they had so little fear of MiG 15s.
@@jlwilliams I don't know if the B 36 ever carried H bombs. It was designed for the huge A bombs and they managed to drop one on Albequerque.
Heavy bombers are of course woefully obsolete and aerial refueling of fighters gives them theoretically unlimited range but I still find parasitical aircraft are such a cool concept and I wonder if we'll see them in the form of some kind of drone in the future.
I was aware of some Goblin history but you were (as usual) far more thorough and interesting.
The Thunderflash, however, is an aircraft I've never heard of before. I'm looking forward to the day you cover it.
and the FICON version of the RF-84 wasn't alone. They also built versions of regular F-84s that would hitch a ride while attached wingtip to wingtip to a B-36. I've once seen a photo of the entire 4 ship combination in flight (the F-84s would take off normally and attach in the air), looked impressive if insane.
There is one on display at the S A C Aerospace Museum located between Omaha and Lincoln Nebraska just off of interstate 80. There is also a B-30 six on display there that has a cradle in the Bombay that this aircraft would attach itself to. The museum is a worthwhile stop.
7:27 - technician showing his contempt for the "no step" warning by putting his foot directly on it.
Chuck Yeager had a story about the Goblin in his book. The testing of the trapeze with the Goblin was not done by pilots used to flying in close formations
I was fascinated by parasite airplanes since I first saw pics of one long ago. IIRC it was to an American airship. As a youngster I loved every cool idea in aviation I came across and couldn't understand why some of them weren't adopted. But even then I could see why this one wasn't. And attached to an airplane was an even worse idea.
Me too.
Pretty sure the first time I ever saw a parasite fighter was in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, when Indy and his father escape from a Nazi dirigible using the attached biplane fighter.
@@johnladuke6475 I love how dad shot up the tail but won't admit it.
I remember building one as accuratly as possible in KSP.
For a jet that looks like a small winged potato it flew very well!
Yes, YES, it is very much a winged potato ¡☆!
I'm going to prepare wings and stabilizers for next dinner, to include a baked potato; I expect it will fly right off my 'plate!☆¡ 😜
Seeing the rear mounted props on the thunderflash image at 15:12 was very satesfying after thinking ”Why don’t we just take the props, and push them somewhere else!” As I’m sure many of us thought watching this ;D
Hi Rex! You’ve probably seen me around here before, but I was wondering if you could cover the prototypical Focke Wulf TA-183 Jet aircraft? It has an interesting history, and it’s very closely related to the Swedish Saab 29 in terms of looks, and was also the basis of Argentina’s first fighter jet ever. Thanks!
Brilliant video. Love the wacky goblin
Thank You.
Amazing little aircraft
4:15 You forgot the Curtiss XP-55, another pusher design intended for the same P&W X-1800 engine as the Northrop XP-56. The Curtiss was even more radical with wingtip rudders and canards. The sweep angle was 32 degrees.
I think the irony is that if you can hook a parasite fighter back to a mothership, you can hook it up to a tube to deliver fuel. The problem to solve has always been the ability to connect one plane with another in the air. The parasite fighter is just air refueling with extra steps.
Yeah, but those "extra steps" were the downfall of the parasite fighter while aerial refueling is a thing. So those "extra steps" proved to be an insoluble problem
I think an air carrier would be an awsome thing to have today and I’m sad that it was shot down before it could be remade into something better
I think this is a genuinely good idea. the best move would have been going with a 5 plane flying type Aircraft carrier. Having a purpose built aircraft made to launch and recover fighters instead of trying to shoe horn the fighter into an existing design.
I love everything about this aircraft!
The XP 55 also had swept wings. America was aware of the advantages of a swept wing. They were just also aware of the disadvantages. The ME 262 only had such a sweep because they did the math wrong on the center of gravity and had to move the engine nacelles back without redesigning the wing roots. I cite Greg's Airplanes and automobiles.
Additionally the minimal sweep only increased airspeed by around 18kts. Messerschmidt had intended to use a modified Bf-109 wing on the Me-262.
The soviets and germany allready experimented with delta's and swept wings 10 years before in early 1930's well ahead of either xp55 or me262
I wonder if the ME163 technogy was used also?
@@cnfuzz J. W. Dunne was doing it before WW2, but only for stability reasons with his flying wings.
Swept wings delays transonic buffeting and give a higher subsonic Mach number. I don't know if they do much at super sonic speeds.
Your videos are OUTSTANDING! 😍😍👍👍
Great video explaining the theory and ultimate reality (failure) of the goblin. But I do think that the turbulence issue during retrieval operations might have been less with the B-36 than with the B-29. It had pusher propellors, thus their corkscrew airstream would have been behind the launch trapeze. Also the distance from the nose to the launch location would have been longer, this might have reduced wake turbulence.
Great vid rex👍
Great footage in this
Very nice videos!! Thanks its very informative and interesting
When you want to make a fighter to fit in a bomb bay, use Fat Man as the starting shape. Cool little plane idea. Coming back to the hanger must have been scary.
2:05
Can someone tell me what plane this is? It looks cool and I want to do some research about it.
I have seen one of these before. In the criminally under applicated SAC museum in Ashland Nebraska. You can see this and a B-36 and an avro Vulcan and an SR-71. Definitely the most underrated/under applicated air museum in the US
I actually recently got to go to the S.A.C. air museum here in Nebraska and see this thing that museum is one of my favorites to go to in my state
Fascinating as always, thanks. Are you sure, though, that it pre-dates the German experimental data becoming available? It does look an awful lot like a much-improved, jet-powered Komet.
The other nail in the coffin for the XF-85 was that the USAF decided to go all-in with development of aerial refueling in 1948, making the Goblin not worth the hassle.
A XF-85 Is on display at the SAC Aerospace Museum between Omaha and Lincoln, Nebraska along interstate 80. The museum also has on display a B-36 with the harness for the goblin inside one of the bombays. Go to aircraft are inside and undercover. The museum is also beginning the process of rehabilitating a British Vulcan bomber.
"Ooooooooh I'm just a small little goblin, nooooo! Please don't fire your cannon I will die to just one attack! I only have three potential pilots please sir I will not drop good intel, NOOOOO YOUR CANNON IS SO STRONG I AM LEVEL ONE GOBLIN I DO NOT KNOW WHY I GUARD THIS BOMBER OOOOH"
The only aircraft designed and built to carry other aircraft were the Akron and Macon airships. The picture ~1:28 is a Sparrowhawk F9C-2 on the Macon's trapeze. I wonder if the Goblin is the only aircraft designed and built as pure parasite. Built is the operative word here.
The B-36 was a really big airplane. Have you done a video on that one?
A section of public road through the McDonnel-Douglas campus in St. Louis (now Boeing) is called Goblin Lane.
One of the Best Planes i ever seen
Of all aircraft, this one speaks the most to my core values
The best attempt to make the enemy laughing them selfs to dead.
I know I've seen multiple people in the ace combat community bring up a "WWI/WWII" era ace combat. And this plane would be like the prequel to the MQ-99, MQ-101, and the arsenal bird.
The cost of the XF-85 program was very high, so the < 3 hours of flight time made the cost/hour astonishing. When the hook recess was faired over for early tests, the handling was tolerable, but when the hook was actually extended, the recess generated turbulence.
Excellent stuff, thanks. Maybe a piece on the DeHavilland Hornet? - was it any use? - or just faster than most?
One of the all time weirdest aircraft. I love the little thing.
I've seen both of these in person. When you're standing next to them you can't help but wonder how anyone crammed themselves into one for a ride. They're like Minis with wings but more bare.
3:30 -- RE: the 3-view technical drawings; its funny, but the Goblin is evocative of 2 WW2-era German designs. The tail and the bulbous aspect reminds me of the He-162, while the Pilot riding right on top of the jet engine makes me think of the Me-163. Granted, there's a significant amount of squinting required to really see it, but consider what the proportion of its wing and control surfaces areas is with respect to the size and power of the engine. The Me-163 only has a vertical tail surface plus rudder; no elevators, it's a bit like a flying wing with a lawn-dart engine strapped on, where the Pilot is above and forward of the exploding part.
A lot of the thing's im seeing on this channel are things I learned of as a kid with my dad, and had almost forgotten of by now... nostalgia bonus points for ?Rex?
What an interesting experiment.
My folks took us children to the Wright- Patterson Air Force Museum. I was young and clearly recall crawling through the tube between the front and rear in the B29 that was on static display. I have a much more vauge recollection of seeing the Goblin. Jo I have a clear recollection of seeing a parasite fighter that was to be used with a ridgid airship, unfortunately I don't recall anything else about that airplane.* Finally, I recall the The Kettering Bug. an early attempt at a remote control flying bomb.
* Apparently the Curtis's F9C Sparrowhawk.
The idea of parasite fighters has always fascinated me. I know the Japanese attempted launching kamikaze rocket planes from bombers, but I don't know why the Germans (who were very experimental) didn't consider such for the Me 163. Short burn time for fuel and most of it used getting to altitude. Have them already up there, carried by a Ju 88, cruising high, ready to release and intercept.
You'd think they'd have used air launches like that for testing and training at least, the same way the USAF dropped their rocket planes from altitude.
In combat though the transport would be a sitting duck to all the fighter sweeps towards the end of the war, and there was a massive shortage of multi engine planes that could lift one.
Thank you
Strategic Air Command & Aerospace Museum in Ashland, NE near Omaha has or had a Goblin on display. We visited the museum years ago, so I'm not sure if it is still there.
That's the museum in Nebraska that's referred to in the video. The Goblin is still there.
I wonder if the question of control sensitivity during docking could have been addressed by adding on some kind of control baffle system that decreased the sensitivity of the controls; i.e. a switch that somehow cut the sensitivity in half or by a third.
McDonald Douglas: Well _there_ you are my good test pilot!
Edwin: What ya got boss?
McDonald Douglas: You're not gonna believe this but,,,
EXCELENTE CANAL......
So cool!
This is like the Smartcar of airplanes.
The real contribution of the parasitic fighter program was the all about the turbulence around an airframe. The aerial refueling tanker revisited many of the same issues and surprisingly many were resolved after some limitations were accepted. The most impressive advancement was made for the US Marines, who flew two Harriers up to a KC-130 for refueling missions. It was clear that no marsupial flight even existed in nature, although there were some examples of in-flight passage of food between birds, so parasitic concepts were only retained in land and sea vehicles, where examples existed in nature.
From the point of WW2 thru the Cold War, the USAAF(now USAF) explored many eventualities, including conventional and unconventional(nuclear) combat. It also contemplated scenarios where we stood alone, and others where we weren't. If we had had to operate alone in a hostile(i.e. conquered) world, we'd need self-sufficient long-range aircraft, which led to the Goblin(your carried along fighter escort) as well as nuclear powered aircraft(before refueling was perfected) and finally space weapons.
thanks for this Rex, do you or the followers know if the B29 “Mothership” is the same one used for the X-1 etc?
The B 36 had six rearward facing pusher props. The Goblin could have easily gotten a facefull of those.
I have known about these aircraft for some time so it is great to finally get more detail about them. Thanks for that.
The concept of attaching fighters to bigger aircraft does go back quite far. I know the USAAF did attach fighters to an airship after WW1, as you showed in your video, and I believe the British did contemplate the using the same idea during WW1 but it did not come to fruition. I cannot remember if the British wanted to use them like America planned to do with the XF-85 or to take fighters up to altitude ready to deal with German Zeppelins attacking Britain like flying aircraft carriers. As the German airforce stopped using Zeppelins in favour of fixed wing aircraft, bad weather causing too many Zeppelins to turn back or attack secondary targets instead, this may have brought an end to the idea of flying aircraft carriers.
G'day,
The AmeriKans, during the 1930s, were COPYING what the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service started doing in 1917 and 1918, suspending Sopwith Camels under Rigid Airships for use as Defensive Fighters during long range maritime patrols.
Not used in Combat..., but they had a lot of fun with it, and revisited the idea in the 1920s.
According to Chuck Yeager the only problem with the Goblin was that the Civilian Test Pilot who repeatedly crashed it into the Trapeze had NEVER Ever recieved ANY Training in Formation Flying, or how to manage Closure-Rates.
Yeager reckoned that if ANY Military-trained Test Pilots had been in the Goblin then the Test Retrievals would have caused no problems whatsoever.
I dunno...., but Yeager is a difficult Authority to attempt to refute.
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
I don't know about the USAAF, but the US Navy certainly was interested in this concept well past WW1. The last "flying aircraft carrier" was the USS Macon, commissioned in 1933, and subsequently lost in 1935.
@@WarblesOnALot I thought they had flown Camels from airships but I was not sure and it had been sometime since I came across it. So thanks for that.
It is interesting to know what Yeager thought of the Goblin. Military pilots and civilian pilots are definatelly two different breeds. Military pilots do tend to be less risk averse and are trained in ways civilian pilots are not.
Having said that even military trained test pilots sometime duck out.I once met a test pilot, ex-Royal Navy, who was one of four sent to make the first carrier landing with the Blackburn Buccaneer. The weather was so bad that the other three decided not to make the landing and flew home. He made the landing and became the first to make a carrier landing with the Buccaneer. I am sure you will have come across the description of a carrier landing being like landing on top of a 100 foot cliff in a hurricane and on a slippery surface, or something like that. So you can imagine what it took in weather so bad that three ex-Royal Navy test pilots would not land on it.
@@FolgoreCZ Thanks. I had a feeling it was the US Navy but for some reason I assumed I was mistaken so went for the USAAF. Of course being a carrier it had to be the US Navy.
@@bigblue6917
Yeah, the idea of building an Aerodrome on top of an Ocean-going Ship has always struck me as being a hubristically stupid Bad Idea which has been done very cleverly...; despite the whole proposition being literally as Mad as a Meat-Axe...!
I once tried a Downwind Takeoff in an Ultralight Motorglider, in a 200 yard Paddock..., and while I still limp and use a Walking-Stick - and have not yet begun to repair the Motorglider ; so I'm known to have tried some foolish stuff - but landing on a Boat is for people whose Control-Freak tendencies are far beyond mine.
Yeager maintained that Civilian Test Pilots received zero training in Close Formation Flying, and that attempting to fly the Goblin onto that Trapeze as one's first attempt at Close Formation was, frankly, stupid.
But there was some kind of Demarcation Dispute, so the Manufacturers had to flight test their products before letting the Military have a go.
Yeager maintained that the Goblin was good but it's Pilot had Dunning Kreuger effect, being too ignorant about Close Formation Technique to be able to realise how much he did not know about what he was attempting to achieve.
So, a good Aeroplane was broken, twice ; and the whole Project was cancelled.
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
You cannot believe how small this fighter is until you stand next to the one on display at the Museum of the United States Air Force.
They should have put landing gear in it.
Seems like madness haha. Can't believe the balls on those test pilots, just keep trying to recover again and again.
I think it's interesting that the concept worked better with the Macon and Sparrowhawks! The airship seems to have made for a better carrier- I bet the slow speed and lack of aerodynamic lift means they didn't cause the turbulence issue as badly.
This plane being named the Goblin would have given a certain character a WTF moment.