I am now 60 years old and I am almost addicted to propeller-driven aeroplanes, which is why I have literally spent months on the Internet. That's why it's always amazing to me when German aeroplane models turn up that I didn't know about before. Sometimes I think that every second person in Germany must have been working on aeroplane designs in their garage or tool shed back then in order to produce such a variety of models and types as they did back then.
I've been studying WW2 since the 1970's, and to this day I still learn something new every month about it. There seems to be literally no end to important twists in the history, nor is there ever any shortage of fascinating personalities to read about.
Today, I looked at an old set of playing cards and saw this plane in it. I thought, huh, what fantasy. Yet lo and behold... I'm now watching this not because I searched for this plane, but because you uploaded it. What serendipity.
You can play a drinking game with this channel. Every time a potentially promising military aircraft project gets derailed because the proposed engines aren't available, take a drink
@@dottorekaoz8679 I just don't understand why the Germans are so obsessed with diving attacks with large planes, since apparently bombs corrected in flight were successfully tested on airships already in World War I.
I wonder how this design compares to : * four engines driving two pair of contra-rorating propellers, independantly (coupling metoh used in the briston brabazon) * four engines and four propellers in a push pull design (see Fokker F-32) * and of course a conventionnal design (4 engines, 4 nacelles, 4 props)
@@RielMyricyne -contra-rotating propellers were a complex and largely untested design -the greif already had heat issues, so an improperly tuned DB603 engine would more often just burn up even more often, like with the B-36 -no real reason why not to go with it aside from doctrine, which is the historical reason the greif was the way it was. given the hurdles, the He-177 was a pretty good design.
The tale of the FW 191 reminds me of the Avro Manchester/Lancaster. The Manchester was designed to take advantage of two new-generation, super-powered engines - but the engines didn't work out. Instead of trying to force it forever, the powers that be quickly decided to substitute 4 proven Merlin engines, and the Lancaster became the most successful British bomber, and one of the most successful bombers overall. If FW would have done the same thing in 1942, they might have had a decent bomber.
The RLM obsession with dive bombing was a strangle hold on many potential designs. I wonder how much weight was on average added to strengthen the airframes so the aircraft could dive bomb?
The UK, in the 1930s, had an obsession with catapult launching bombers. And making them easy to break down into parts you could put on a train. And fitting tanks onto trains.
@@wbertie2604All WW2 tanks were designed for train transport except the German Maus (including the Tiger). The biggest limiting factor was however the crane capacity on ships to move them across the sea to the front lines. The Me109 was specifically designed for rail transport because major structural damage couldn’t be repaired in the field (they had to be returned to the factory for repair).
@@allangibson8494 British 1930s BOMBERS were sometimes designed to break down into components for ease of transport, including by rail. Taking apart a tiny fighter is amateur stuff!
Kurt Tank was a trained electrical engineer, not an aeronautical engineer, which he just kind of picked up along the way and I am sure the reason the FW190 had electrical rather than hydraulic systems.
Late war Luftwaffe medium bombers were left almost exclusively as Ju 88S and Ju 188, excepting the very late Arado 234. He 111s were only being used to deploy aerial V1s and Do 217s were only being used for Fritz X and Hs 129s as both were effectively obsolete by 1943.
Heinkel's design was meant to get the power of two engines and the wind resistance and weight of one engine. Of course it didn't work like that, not for a long time. To do that all the parts were crowded together with literally no way for a mechanic to get a wrench inside. And that's why the engines were fire-prone as well, too much heat and no way to cool it.
@@BV-fr8bf That's awesome, did not know that! Was ever a plane's name more fitting than the HE-177 "Grief"? If Heinkel had perfected the design sooner, it might have made a significant difference to German fortunes, particularly on the eastern front. But I think less than 1,000 HE-177's were built in total, not nearly enough. And as bombers are offensive weapons, and Heinkel's Franken-plane was not ready until well into 1944 - by which time the Germans were on the defensive on all fronts.
@robertmaybeth3434 I agree, "Grief" would have been a fitting name for the He-177, at least for English-speaking people. But it actually was named "Greif," a somewhat antiquated German word for bird of prey. 😅
I think they had the right idea going for high performance, but they should have ditched the dive bombing requirement and just made it as fast as possible in a straight line. If you need to hit a target accurately, fly lower, but stay fast. That's what made the Mosquito so effective for the RAF. Had they done this, the airframe wouldn't need to be as heavily built, which means it can be lighter, and they wouldn't need these stupidly complicated engines to power them.
The idiotic luftwaffe requirement that every bomber (including the HE-177 Grief that at first showed so much promise) had to dive-bomb on demand, was mainly the fault of Ernst Udet. Udet was of course a very skilled pilot from WW1, and one of Goering's war comrades. Udet had no technical background nor education but defying all logic, he was placed over aircraft firms from Focke Wulf to Junkers. But when Goering put him in charge of procuring new aircraft, Udet knew he was way out of his depth and tried to resign, but Goering refused to accept it. This no doubt led to his suicide in 1941 as Goering had practically pressed the pistol into his hand - yet the stupid requirement that German bombers must dive-bomb was kept!
26:38 Well, this escort may be the problem. First, you have to have long-range escort fighters, and that was a big hassle, and second, you have to have money for a lot of fighters and bombers at the same time.
@@z3r0_35 That was the theory, but the implementation of it depended on the circumstances. Certainly, a faster bomber stays in the enemy's territory for a shorter time, so there is a chance that the enemy will not have time to send his fighters. Such luck even sometimes happened in the case of PZL.37 bombers in 1939. But when the enemy already has fighters in the area or - even worse - air dominance in general, this will not work.
@@Zbigniew_Nowak Well no tactic is foolproof, but it is generally better to be faster and reduce the odds of getting hit at all than it is to be slower and hope you can fend off incoming attacks. It's part of a concept called the Protection Onion. Ideally, you don't want to be detected (this is where stealth and the element of surprise come in). If you're detected, don't get acquired (electronic warfare and other means of making it harder to target you). If you get acquired, don't get hit (evasive maneuvers, soft or hard cover, defensive firepower, or just being too fast to hit). If you get hit, don't take damage (armor). If you take damage, hope it isn't fatal (rugged construction, system redundancy etc.). This same principle also applies to armored vehicles, warships, and even infantry to a degree (except the last layer, that relies more on sheer, dumb luck than anything else)
@randallkelley3600 In fairness there was also the Amerika bomber programme but yes, most of their twins were hopeless. Too big and underpowered to be effective tactical bombers even had their engines proven reliable.
I heard an attempt at a rational explanation. They simply didn't have the same resources as the Allies, so they couldn't throw thousands of bombs and hope that one would hit. But you can get around this problem differently (guided bombs, gliding bombs...)
@@Zbigniew_Nowak Some existed at that time but weren't feasible to use due to technology. The Allies even gave up on guided bombers (Joe Kennedy Jr killed trying to get out of one). It took the Cold War's USSR to force development of Germany's concept, which ultimately led to MAD doctrine. I detest anything guided as the micro-control idiots are trying to force "guided" driver-less cars upon us.
...I made a comment on this too and OP deleted it (so he'll probably delete this one too but whatever). I am wondering now, if you're reading this, OP, why did you delete my comment? Vis: "So would the 'HE-177 'Grief'". I'm not angry just curious - seems an innocuous enough comment to me! If you are deleting comments like mine, why not just turn them off altogether.
I really like your narration style, you have got it down to near perfection, and it is MUCH better than AI voices! You sound like you've done the homework backwards and forwards, and the liberal use of still images is interesting. I wish you could occasionally mix in film of the aircraft too with all the still images, it would really lighten the video. Plus please mention more interesting points like production figures, nick-names (i.e. the HE-177 Grief was called by Hitler the "Flying Panther" due to massive problems with both weapons), what pilots, and their enemies, thought of the planes, et. al.,and then your videos would be even more interesting.
The British produced the Napier Sabre X engine that powered the Hawker Typhoon and Hawker Tempest. These were also unreliable at first but were developed in to reliable power units. Rolls Royce also had the Eagle, a similar design.
My goodness i thought i know about all the reasonable regular aircraft of WW-2 (not all the experimental late war wunderwaffe) but seems one is never to old to learn!!
Germany has always had a kind of love-hate relationship with the KISS principle... They usually don't like to follow it, but when they do, they produce some remarkable stuff. Perhaps we're lucky in that they didn't follow it in their aircraft and tank production in WW2.
A weapon made of pressed sheet metal... When the Americans first acquired the MG42, they believed that such a primitive design was a sign of the decline of German gunsmithing.
@@Zbigniew_Nowakthe British Sten made the MG42 look positively over engineered, but both did what it said on the can, which in a conflict situation was all that was needed, as an aside an uprated MG 34/42 remained in front line service until very recently.
Glad I'm not the only one to wonder this. As per the other replies its definitely not a (VW) Kubelwagen. The only curves on those are the wheels. And the stripes are painted on. I would guess its a commandeered civvy car that is a bit too out-dated for the officers to drive about in and so a better another use for it was found.
@@chrishartley4553could the rear panel be curved and added to a Kublewagon?, in low light the curved stripes would be seen to change far more readily than stripes on a flat panel, just an idea as I too wondered about the little vehicle.
@@CrusaderSports250 That seems to be a huge amount of work. There is clearly a trunk/boot that can be opened in the curved panel which would have needed to be built up. More simple to think it just an old four wheeled airfield hack. Probably means it has nicer seats then a Kubelwagen as well. I am pretty certain it is a hard top as well.
7:57 Yes, I also have such associations with insects when it comes to many later German aircraft. 25:32 Interesting hypothesis. This is the first time I've heard it, but it's possible.
Focke-Wulf (Kurt Tank) used electrical motors instead of hydraulic fluids, in order to increase reliability/functionality of a damaged aircraft and reduce weight. FW-190 did not have hydraulics...
A very good and entertaining video. I enjoyed it. However, I'm left puzzled. Related electrical systems aside (which wasn't elucidated upon), what has the opening image apparently of a Focke-Wulf Fw 190 in British RAF livery, got to do with the Focke Wulf Fw 191 and bomber design in general? Indeed, why use any of the images of Fw 190's? As fillers? Why 'tart-up' your video unnecessarily?
At 0:35 the He 177: *He 177 Operations in Russia* The end of He l 77 operations in the West was by no means the end of the He 177 in Luftwaffe service. During the late spring of 1944, Kampfgeschwader l under Obstlt Horst van Riesen began converting to the aircraft, the first Gruppe moving to its operational airfields in East Prussia in May. Before the end of the month, 1./KG 1 was joined by II and III. Gruppe, and the Geschwader now comprised some ninety He l 77As, undoubtedly the most powerful striking force on the Eastern Front. Operations began almost at once, the bombers striking at troop concentrations and Soviet supply centres in support of the German army. No attempt was made to strike at strategic targets although many were within range. The bombers attacked in daylight at about 6,000 m (20,000 ft) and losses were very low. The few Soviet fighters that managed to reach the bombers' attacking altitude rarely pressed home their attacks because of the formidable defensive armament of the He 177. Also, very few He 177s were lost because of engine fires; constant modifications had ensured that troubles suffered by the coupled engine installation were reduced to a minimum. The machines that did crash due to this cause were mainly those flown by inexperienced pilots who mishandled the throttles, causing the engines to overheat. At one time, KG 1 made several pattern bombing attacks, the only time such tactics were employed by the Luftwaffe. During one such operation, von Riesen led 87 bombers in a mass attack on the railway centre of Velikye Luki. Flying in three waves, each comprising a Gruppe of some 30 aircraft, the He 177s must have been a most impressive sight. From: “German Aircraft of the Second World War” by J. R. Smith & Antony L. Kay Pages 187 to 188 Copyright 1972 ISBN 85177 836 4 *Operation Steinbock, He 177 Note:* While, as an operation, Steinbock could only be considered an abysmal failure, the He 177s achieved some success. The more experienced crews carried maximum bomb loads and, climbing to 23,000 feet while still over German territory, approached their target in a shallow dive, attaining speeds in excess of 430 mph, at which night fighters could not intercept and anti-aircraft fire could not follow them. page 346 - "The Warplanes of the Third Reich" - William Green copyright 1970, SBN 356 02382 6
Did the RLM ever see an aircraft design and not think “well we should at least make a few of them”? A stock of spare parts will also be required. I suspect collusion with model aircraft manufacturers of the future.
I wonder if the companies could have simultaneously designed alternatives with hydraulics (Focke Wulf) and four standard engines. Like the Manchester to Lancaster...
The moment you said," flying power station", all i could think of is robert palmer singing " bang a Goring,get it on"!!!😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Sorry, '80s music joke
My friend, i wrtite you respectfully because i don´t pretend to screw your comment but i think that. even you are right, still it was useless for the luftwaffe to have heavy bombers for this stage of the war when the heavy allied bombing campaign had begun, and when the mustang p-51 had appeared and was close to perform his escort missions over the occupied Europe specially accompanying allied bombers all the way. I think that for this moment of the war it was an academic issue; see the only possible meaning for a long range strategical aircraft woud have been it to be able to support the submarines of the kriegsmarine that were passing by a very terrible moment and for this the germans needed a twin engined long range aircraft more than a four engine heayv bomber type aircraft that would be less agile to face the allied fighters over the atlantic ocean. because to talk about long range heavy bomber was simply out of time for Germany; no matter how sucessful would have been the he-177 or the fw 191 still a twin engined nightfighter was much more important for the germans that had begun to deal with the non-stop campaign of the allied air forces. The germans really committed a big mistake when decided not to pay attention to the fw ta154 twin engined fighter or to put aside the hs-129 uhu that would have been much more useful for germany than good heavy bombers. Hitler and his subordinate hermann goering lacked of imagination, them never looked for the constant improvement of the v-1, them never thought about putting a smaller version of the junkers jumo 004 engine on the v-1, neither tried to cancel the he-162 and use his resources for more assembly plants for the V-1 with these improvements. that availability of improved versions of the V-1 would have created really terrible problems to the allies forcing them to a hysterical campaign for destruction of any possible ramp of the v-1 inside Germany, bringing the germans the chance of building fake ramps, also or sending night waves of the v-1 against Antwerp, and allied air bases inside france, forcing allied fighters to state of constant alert for the chase of these V-1s. And the necessary aircraft for bombing the production plants, ramps and destruction of the V-1s once on the air, would have deviated many important resources of the allied air forces, bringing some of the necessary relief that the german population was very needed, R
Only Napier sabre ever made coupled engine concept work on the Typhoon and Tempest fighters and even that had lots of problems and was replaced by the Bristol Centaurus as soon as possible
I would think they would use the master con rod idea like they do in a radial engine, where (in this case) one of the four conrods connects to the crank and the other three connect to the first one, it's how they do radial engines, and it keeps the crank within the bounds of sanity.
@@CrusaderSports250 I am sure it was a slip of the tongue. He pretty much has to have meant "liquid cooled X-24 engine". Nobody every got one of those into service during WWII, although quite a few people tried.
Can someone explain why the drag of two more propellers would make dive bombing too difficult. Dive bomber were equipped with powerful dive brakes because they needed extra drag to control speed in a near vertical drive. Maybe extra propellers would eliminate the need for sperate dive brakes all together, and you can reduce propeller drag by increasing power, so I suspect there might be some other reason than simple excess drag.
@@gort8203 because wings flex. Weight further out needs sufficient structure to avoid, on pulling out of a dive, the wings failing in the outboard section unless you use an incredibly strong and thus heavy outer wing structure. And then, with more weight outboard due to the heavier structure, you need to strengthen the inner wing more. Before long, the wing gets too heavy and the thing can barely fly. If the weight is inboard, you can make a strong centre section, which is short and also relatively thick, without excessive overall weight. There are some options with less conventional structures such as very thick skins and using steel, but very few aircraft have used such techniques because they haven't really been all that successful. At least for subsonic aircraft.
When you try to build a tool to lots of different jobs, it will do those jobs poorly, and non e of them well compared to specialist tools. Example: Swiss army knife. A great tool, I have a couple - but only used for hiking. For every other job, I use specialist tools like screwdrivers - faster, easier, more reliable. The Nazis tried to make everything DO everything - the Allies went with specialist tools, to do THAT job really well.
It's funny how people question why the RAF stuck with rifle calibre defensive armourments on its bombers but remain silent of the Germans doing the same.
@malusignatius He177 - still had 1 7.92mm machine gun, alongside 213mmhwchine guns and 2 20mm cannon, and the Do 317 still had 2 7.92mm machine guns plus 3 13mm machine guns and a 15mm cannon.the Fw181 had 4 7.92mm machine guns plus 2 20mm cannons. So, although they were moving to the larger calibre guns, they were still relying on the smaller calibre weapons. Only Junkers had ditched the 7.92mm guns.
Nazi Germany's long Range Bomber program and other better thought out Aircraft really die when Walther Wever was killed in an Aircrash in 1936. He championed strategic Bombing as a means to defeat an Enemy, he supported servearl long range Bomber programs he knew the importance of having long range Bomber in any future War with Russia or Europe, Those that replaced him though championed short range Bombers and Dive Bombers, they all fell for the quick victory, and failed to see the short coming of their Medium Bombers once they were no longer tied to combined support of ground forces, those short comings would first surface during the Battle of Britain, and then amplified in the East against Russia whom quickly moved all its production factories out of range of the Luftwaffe's Bomber Forces the other side of the Ural Mountians. Even once they realised their mistakes instead of just building a larg Four Engined Heavy, they instead tried to turning the tried and tested Meduim format into a fast medium with a larger payload. If building multi cyclinder engines had been possible I am the USA would have tried the same and even they ran into the same sort of issues with the Later Pratt and Whitney multi cylinder engines in the B29 Bomber. The other limiting factor even if they had the equivalent of a Lancaster if B17. Then they would have needed the equivalent Me or FW version of the Mustang escort fighter. Like most plans German military planners came up with in the inter war years, all were unravelled once the Nazi's came to power. German military re-arming never reached its planned completion date because Hitler was a gambler when his Gamble invading Poland set WW2 rolling the Military was not really ready for the forthcoming conflict especially and long conflict on serveral fronts ,luckly for the world it was that way though millions had the pay with their lives. Thanks for another intresting insite into Aircraft that never really mad it into combat 😮
Seriously, though, I’m surprised they never tried a electric aircraft. Single power plant centrally mounted inline engine driving a generator powering twin electric motors. It could be very streamlined, but, the technology just wasn’t there.
It had four engines, two per engine nacelle and because they were packed in so tightly, they overheated rapidly, which was a major cause of the near constant engine fires
They were not trying to create a radial engine, or they would have made one. On a per cylinder displacement basis liquid cooled engines have advantages, and more cylinders meant more power, which is why Napier pursued an H-24 design. A lot of development went into the DB V-12s. Given the stress the German aero industry was under, mating two of them to produce a 24-cylinder engine was a shortcut to developing an H-24 rather than a radial. Cooling the engine itself wasn't really the problem, the problem was oil leaks that pooled in the nacelle. That's what caught fire. I suspect that two V-12s mated to a combination drive unit had a lot more potential oil leaks than a single V-12.
The U.S. pursued development of the Allison V3420, an engine comprised of 2 Allison V1710 12 cylinder engines. The Italians built a 24 cylinder engine in the late 1920s and early 1930s, IIRC. The Russians tried a lot of odd engine designs, too. I think just about everyone tried _something_ along this line.
@@EngineEnginer Thank you for that. I don't know where the myth that these engines were connected in tandem comes from but this is the second time I've seen it today.
Yeah, hate to break it to you but I am pretty sure that's actually his voice, not a bot. I can recall a video some time back when he had been sick and his voice was a bit different, hence the reason I don't think he uses a bot
@@southronjr1570 Sorry, almost every word shows inflections that are not human... every word is broken into a single non- flowing part of the sentence... each word also has a rise and fall from the start of the word to the "back end" of the word.... completely artificial/mechanical/bot.
Sadly, I will no longer be watching any more videos on RUclips. RUclips has decided that they want to monetize everything to the point where you’re watching a car show every four minutes unless you buy a subscription well you know what RUclips you can pound sand
I watch these videos on brave browser. Cuts out all the ads and i can watch these videos from start to finish without any ads. But as soon as ads eventually appear on this browser, i will be turning off youtube too. Its painful.
Interestingly, the Ju 288 technically won the _Bomber B_ competition, but Junkers ran into a lot of issues getting the Jumo 222 delivered for the plane and by late 1942, the later Ju 288 prototypes were using the Daimler-Benz DB 610 engine. Had the Jumo 222 actually worked correctly by early 1942, it's likely the first Ju 288 units would would have started operations by early 1943.
@@samaguirre3283 the kiss principle was taught to me many decades ago as, "Keep it simple and Stupid." It's also the Google definition and Wikipedia one.
Obviously, when they were designing this stuff, they weren't thinking about the poor mechanics who would be forced to service it in sub-zero temperatures on the Russian Front. Same with tanks. Coupled engines-the British tried it, the Germans tried it, and then the American$$$$ tried it. They needed a 2000hp engine, fast, and could have simply built the R-2800, reverse-engineered, from a captured Thunderbolt. They were just wedded to the Schnellbomber concept, and couldn't shake it. 4 BMW 801's would have made a nice high-speed bomber if you leave off all the 'accessories' like turrets and dive brakes. You might lose a few more planes that way, but you're not losing a large crew of gunners in the process.
Only 0.30 into the video and “Stop…STOP…..CUT!” Luftwaffe is pronounced like “Looft-Vaffe”. In German ‘w’ makes an English sound like a ‘v’. There is no English ‘w’ sound in Luftwaffe. It’s not difficult. If you’re going to make videos about something, it’s worth spending a little time and effort to get words that are important, common or central to the theme sounding correct. Another example for Americans: It’s not pronounced “Ay-dolf Hitler”. It’s pronounced “Ar-dolf Hitler”. Now…..let’s carry on with the video……😅
Even in the UK, they had the Halifax swapped to a four engined design prior to any prototype due to scepticism about the Vulture. Not that HP wanted to use the Merlin either. The RAF was very keen on putting Sabres in things, though, although in the end only the Typhoon and Tempest actually did.
@@wbertie2604 And the Lancaster was just a straight up 4 Merlin engined version of the twin Vulture Manchester. The scepticism was well placed. Napier seemed to be one of the few companies that had success with multi-bank aero engines.
In defence of Japanese Kamikaze planes they typically didnt burst into flames themselves .......... so much for superior German Engineering , but as anyone whose owned a German Car will tell you "over engineeered" isnt the same as "superior engineering" . The moral of the story ? Buy Japanese
You judge the entire German car industry which is a different branch with multiple factories world wide on a WW2 prototype plane they used as a testbed for a electrical system ? What is wrong with your unreasonable hatred against anything german ?
if u think a star of david is comedic, i sudgjest to do some real home work, havaraa coin, end of depression coin of usa 1932 AND may i add.... the fact u should check the nr of officcers and wehrmacht soldiers who where jew or from jewish decent.... and then , i wonder, dont u all ask questions to this subject? or are u to indoctrinated?
I think the commentator was saying the similarity of the engine to the star of David was amusing, given the Germans dislike of anything relating to the Jews, he never seid he thought the star itself or what it stands for is amusing.
I am now 60 years old and I am almost addicted to propeller-driven aeroplanes, which is why I have literally spent months on the Internet. That's why it's always amazing to me when German aeroplane models turn up that I didn't know about before. Sometimes I think that every second person in Germany must have been working on aeroplane designs in their garage or tool shed back then in order to produce such a variety of models and types as they did back then.
@michaelneuwirth3414 I'm 72, when you get to my age you'll know a lot more aircraft including this one.
The European is a creator of technological marvels, and to think the evil cabal wants us to misegenate us all!
War thunder is crack
I've been studying WW2 since the 1970's, and to this day I still learn something new every month about it. There seems to be literally no end to important twists in the history, nor is there ever any shortage of fascinating personalities to read about.
Yeah, piston powered planes have something very unique and engaging in them
Today, I looked at an old set of playing cards and saw this plane in it. I thought, huh, what fantasy. Yet lo and behold... I'm now watching this not because I searched for this plane, but because you uploaded it. What serendipity.
Yep sometimes life is really weird
Both the Germans and the British rue the day their air ministries passed on the chance to beat the world to jet power.
Oh was in an aircraft identification playing card decks? I know they gave those out to US troops at various times in history.
You can play a drinking game with this channel. Every time a potentially promising military aircraft project gets derailed because the proposed engines aren't available, take a drink
“A man drinks like that and don’t eat, he is going to DIE!”
@@cdfe3388When?
You bring death to us!
@@cdfe3388"When?"
And every time something with buried/pusher engines had 'engine cooling issues....'
The He-177 was a 4-engine bomber but with only 2 propellers.
I knew that too :)
The "Greif" was also first required to be a dive bomber. I looked at my model kit and thought: "Yeah, that works once for sure..."
@@dottorekaoz8679 I just don't understand why the Germans are so obsessed with diving attacks with large planes, since apparently bombs corrected in flight were successfully tested on airships already in World War I.
I wonder how this design compares to :
* four engines driving two pair of contra-rorating propellers, independantly (coupling metoh used in the briston brabazon)
* four engines and four propellers in a push pull design (see Fokker F-32)
* and of course a conventionnal design (4 engines, 4 nacelles, 4 props)
@@RielMyricyne
-contra-rotating propellers were a complex and largely untested design
-the greif already had heat issues, so an improperly tuned DB603 engine would more often just burn up even more often, like with the B-36
-no real reason why not to go with it aside from doctrine, which is the historical reason the greif was the way it was.
given the hurdles, the He-177 was a pretty good design.
The tale of the FW 191 reminds me of the Avro Manchester/Lancaster. The Manchester was designed to take advantage of two new-generation, super-powered engines - but the engines didn't work out. Instead of trying to force it forever, the powers that be quickly decided to substitute 4 proven Merlin engines, and the Lancaster became the most successful British bomber, and one of the most successful bombers overall. If FW would have done the same thing in 1942, they might have had a decent bomber.
He 177 would be a better analogy as it was a heavy bomber like the Manchester. The FW 191 is quite a bit smaller more of a medium bomber.
The RLM obsession with dive bombing was a strangle hold on many potential designs. I wonder how much weight was on average added to strengthen the airframes so the aircraft could dive bomb?
The UK, in the 1930s, had an obsession with catapult launching bombers. And making them easy to break down into parts you could put on a train. And fitting tanks onto trains.
@@wbertie2604All WW2 tanks were designed for train transport except the German Maus (including the Tiger).
The biggest limiting factor was however the crane capacity on ships to move them across the sea to the front lines.
The Me109 was specifically designed for rail transport because major structural damage couldn’t be repaired in the field (they had to be returned to the factory for repair).
@@wbertie2604 The reason rail transport was specified in almost every tank in WW2 is that they would break down if driven long distances.
@@allangibson8494 the Centurion arrived before VJ day and was not designed for transport by train.
@@allangibson8494 British 1930s BOMBERS were sometimes designed to break down into components for ease of transport, including by rail. Taking apart a tiny fighter is amateur stuff!
The Star of David engine observation was hilarious
Seriously, that's like something straight out of South Park.
The RLM looking at a promising design about to order the dumbest design change requirements
Did you overhear that the RLM wanted to use it as a testbed for this kind of system ?
They approved redesigned prototypes without this system later.
Kurt Tank was a trained electrical engineer, not an aeronautical engineer, which he just kind of picked up along the way and I am sure the reason the FW190 had electrical rather than hydraulic systems.
Electric actuation was common. Most systems on the Boeing B-17 were electric. The only real hydraulic system was the brakes.
Man, you deserve more subs. Your videos are great
Late war Luftwaffe medium bombers were left almost exclusively as Ju 88S and Ju 188, excepting the very late Arado 234. He 111s were only being used to deploy aerial V1s and Do 217s were only being used for Fritz X and Hs 129s as both were effectively obsolete by 1943.
i just learned of the The Daimler-Benz DB Jäger, a heavy fighter, seems like a topic up your alley buddy!
I thought the He177 had four engines in two nacelles. Not a 'twin-engine' airplane?
Heinkel's design was meant to get the power of two engines and the wind resistance and weight of one engine. Of course it didn't work like that, not for a long time. To do that all the parts were crowded together with literally no way for a mechanic to get a wrench inside. And that's why the engines were fire-prone as well, too much heat and no way to cool it.
@@robertmaybeth3434 The Germans fixed the He 177's 20+ engines design problems just in time to run out of fuel for bomber operations.
@@BV-fr8bf That's awesome, did not know that! Was ever a plane's name more fitting than the HE-177 "Grief"? If Heinkel had perfected the design sooner, it might have made a significant difference to German fortunes, particularly on the eastern front.
But I think less than 1,000 HE-177's were built in total, not nearly enough. And as bombers are offensive weapons, and Heinkel's Franken-plane was not ready until well into 1944 - by which time the Germans were on the defensive on all fronts.
@robertmaybeth3434 I agree, "Grief" would have been a fitting name for the He-177, at least for English-speaking people.
But it actually was named "Greif," a somewhat antiquated German word for bird of prey. 😅
and you were right, He-177 is indeed a 4 engine bomber.
Once again thanks RUclips for another great video. Subscribed. Keep up your work!
Interesting that so many aircraft designs from several countries failed due to the engines not performing as expected
The background picture kept throwing me! A very interesting video, thanks :)
I think they had the right idea going for high performance, but they should have ditched the dive bombing requirement and just made it as fast as possible in a straight line. If you need to hit a target accurately, fly lower, but stay fast. That's what made the Mosquito so effective for the RAF. Had they done this, the airframe wouldn't need to be as heavily built, which means it can be lighter, and they wouldn't need these stupidly complicated engines to power them.
The idiotic luftwaffe requirement that every bomber (including the HE-177 Grief that at first showed so much promise) had to dive-bomb on demand, was mainly the fault of Ernst Udet. Udet was of course a very skilled pilot from WW1, and one of Goering's war comrades. Udet had no technical background nor education but defying all logic, he was placed over aircraft firms from Focke Wulf to Junkers. But when Goering put him in charge of procuring new aircraft, Udet knew he was way out of his depth and tried to resign, but Goering refused to accept it. This no doubt led to his suicide in 1941 as Goering had practically pressed the pistol into his hand - yet the stupid requirement that German bombers must dive-bomb was kept!
26:38 Well, this escort may be the problem. First, you have to have long-range escort fighters, and that was a big hassle, and second, you have to have money for a lot of fighters and bombers at the same time.
@Zbigniew_Nowak The theory is that if you make it fast enough, it won't NEED escorts.
@@z3r0_35 That was the theory, but the implementation of it depended on the circumstances. Certainly, a faster bomber stays in the enemy's territory for a shorter time, so there is a chance that the enemy will not have time to send his fighters. Such luck even sometimes happened in the case of PZL.37 bombers in 1939. But when the enemy already has fighters in the area or - even worse - air dominance in general, this will not work.
@@Zbigniew_Nowak Well no tactic is foolproof, but it is generally better to be faster and reduce the odds of getting hit at all than it is to be slower and hope you can fend off incoming attacks. It's part of a concept called the Protection Onion. Ideally, you don't want to be detected (this is where stealth and the element of surprise come in). If you're detected, don't get acquired (electronic warfare and other means of making it harder to target you). If you get acquired, don't get hit (evasive maneuvers, soft or hard cover, defensive firepower, or just being too fast to hit). If you get hit, don't take damage (armor). If you take damage, hope it isn't fatal (rugged construction, system redundancy etc.). This same principle also applies to armored vehicles, warships, and even infantry to a degree (except the last layer, that relies more on sheer, dumb luck than anything else)
The German obsession with dive brakes is beyond madness.
Allow me to offer the rather generic "I agree".
And twin engine aircraft.
@randallkelley3600 In fairness there was also the Amerika bomber programme but yes, most of their twins were hopeless. Too big and underpowered to be effective tactical bombers even had their engines proven reliable.
I heard an attempt at a rational explanation. They simply didn't have the same resources as the Allies, so they couldn't throw thousands of bombs and hope that one would hit. But you can get around this problem differently (guided bombs, gliding bombs...)
@@Zbigniew_Nowak Some existed at that time but weren't feasible to use due to technology. The Allies even gave up on guided bombers (Joe Kennedy Jr killed trying to get out of one). It took the Cold War's USSR to force development of Germany's concept, which ultimately led to MAD doctrine. I detest anything guided as the micro-control idiots are trying to force "guided" driver-less cars upon us.
My toe nails curl up, every time he says "Looftwaffe".
Like Avro Manchester with its coupled RollsRoyce Vulture engines , the Heinkel He177 had 2 coupled , in fact 4 single engines.
Except that the Avro Manchester did not have coupled engines. It had only two Rolls Royce Vulture engines.
@@tallaster-g7s which was another failed X engine
@@Bakes-z4c No because it only had 2 not for engines. Meaning it was NOT a x engine.
2:13 Six rows of cylinders make it an in-line radial engine.
Another Great video, keep 'em coming. :D
The flying power station would be a cool name for a rock band.
Like the “Electric Light Orchestra”? (ELO as they were also known).
...I made a comment on this too and OP deleted it (so he'll probably delete this one too but whatever). I am wondering now, if you're reading this, OP, why did you delete my comment? Vis: "So would the 'HE-177 'Grief'". I'm not angry just curious - seems an innocuous enough comment to me! If you are deleting comments like mine, why not just turn them off altogether.
Power Station were a kind of supergroup, but they weren't around long
All that electric drive! Shall we call this the Porche Tiger of the luffwaffer?
Porsché
I can't imagine just how many hours at night I wasted playing Wolfenstein. I loved that game!
Crazy game😂😊😊
I really like your narration style, you have got it down to near perfection, and it is MUCH better than AI voices! You sound like you've done the homework backwards and forwards, and the liberal use of still images is interesting.
I wish you could occasionally mix in film of the aircraft too with all the still images, it would really lighten the video. Plus please mention more interesting points like production figures, nick-names (i.e. the HE-177 Grief was called by Hitler the "Flying Panther" due to massive problems with both weapons), what pilots, and their enemies, thought of the planes, et. al.,and then your videos would be even more interesting.
The British produced the Napier Sabre X engine that powered the Hawker Typhoon and Hawker Tempest. These were also unreliable at first but were developed in to reliable power units. Rolls Royce also had the Eagle, a similar design.
Sabre is a H design- 2 flat 12s joined together
My goodness i thought i know about all the reasonable regular aircraft of WW-2 (not all the experimental late war wunderwaffe) but seems one is never to old to learn!!
"KISS" is not in the German engineering mindset.
Keep It Stupid Simple?😮
@@alfonsfalkhayn8950 Ja!
Not then, not now. Ask any owner of a car from the Fatherland.
@@morstyrannis1951 Good one
Germany has always had a kind of love-hate relationship with the KISS principle... They usually don't like to follow it, but when they do, they produce some remarkable stuff. Perhaps we're lucky in that they didn't follow it in their aircraft and tank production in WW2.
A weapon made of pressed sheet metal... When the Americans first acquired the MG42, they believed that such a primitive design was a sign of the decline of German gunsmithing.
@@Zbigniew_Nowakthe British Sten made the MG42 look positively over engineered, but both did what it said on the can, which in a conflict situation was all that was needed, as an aside an uprated MG 34/42 remained in front line service until very recently.
Can anyone identify the wacky-looking vehicle standing behind the bomber at 14:47 please? And what's with the stripes?
Looks like the rear of a Kubelwagen? The white stripes are probably to aid pilot visibility while taxing.
Is it striped or is it corrugated? A close up suggests corrugated if you look at the sign/ badge on the back(?) still don't know though.
Glad I'm not the only one to wonder this.
As per the other replies its definitely not a (VW) Kubelwagen. The only curves on those are the wheels. And the stripes are painted on.
I would guess its a commandeered civvy car that is a bit too out-dated for the officers to drive about in and so a better another use for it was found.
@@chrishartley4553could the rear panel be curved and added to a Kublewagon?, in low light the curved stripes would be seen to change far more readily than stripes on a flat panel, just an idea as I too wondered about the little vehicle.
@@CrusaderSports250 That seems to be a huge amount of work. There is clearly a trunk/boot that can be opened in the curved panel which would have needed to be built up.
More simple to think it just an old four wheeled airfield hack. Probably means it has nicer seats then a Kubelwagen as well. I am pretty certain it is a hard top as well.
Germany hasn't kept it simple since the 1870s. Sometimes this worked in their favor and the rest of the time it didn't.
My favourite is the 35,000 ton (Washington treaty) battleship that ended up at about 50,000- the Bismarck
@@Bakes-z4cthe Bismarck has to be one of the most overrated and terrible battleships of ww2.
Thank you for another informative video. One issue with the engine used for this aircraft. I thought the BMW had about 1700HP.
7:57 Yes, I also have such associations with insects when it comes to many later German aircraft. 25:32 Interesting hypothesis. This is the first time I've heard it, but it's possible.
Focke-Wulf (Kurt Tank) used electrical motors instead of hydraulic fluids, in order to increase reliability/functionality of a damaged aircraft and reduce weight. FW-190 did not have hydraulics...
Man that logo is cool
The HE 177 was FOUR ENGINED with two in each cowling - this caused more problems.
the algo-deities of the tube'y'all made me do this...
A very good and entertaining video. I enjoyed it. However, I'm left puzzled. Related electrical systems aside (which wasn't elucidated upon), what has the opening image apparently of a Focke-Wulf Fw 190 in British RAF livery, got to do with the Focke Wulf Fw 191 and bomber design in general? Indeed, why use any of the images of Fw 190's? As fillers? Why 'tart-up' your video unnecessarily?
At 0:35 the He 177:
*He 177 Operations in Russia*
The end of He l 77 operations in the West was by no means the end of the He 177 in Luftwaffe service. During the late spring of 1944, Kampfgeschwader l under Obstlt Horst van Riesen began converting to the aircraft, the first Gruppe moving to its operational airfields in East Prussia in May. Before the end of the month, 1./KG 1 was joined by II and III. Gruppe, and the Geschwader now comprised some ninety He l 77As, undoubtedly the most powerful striking force on the Eastern Front.
Operations began almost at once, the bombers striking at troop concentrations and Soviet supply centres in support of the German army. No attempt was made to strike at strategic targets although many were within range. The bombers attacked in daylight at about 6,000 m (20,000 ft) and losses were very low. The few Soviet fighters that managed to reach the bombers' attacking altitude rarely pressed home their attacks because of the formidable defensive armament of the He 177. Also, very few He 177s were lost because of engine fires; constant modifications had ensured that troubles suffered by the coupled engine installation were reduced to a minimum. The machines that did crash due to this cause were mainly those flown by inexperienced pilots who mishandled the throttles, causing the engines to overheat.
At one time, KG 1 made several pattern bombing attacks, the only time such tactics were employed by the Luftwaffe. During one such operation, von Riesen led 87 bombers in a mass attack on the railway centre of Velikye Luki. Flying in three waves, each comprising a Gruppe of some 30 aircraft, the He 177s must have been a most impressive sight.
From:
“German Aircraft of the Second World War” by J. R. Smith & Antony L. Kay
Pages 187 to 188
Copyright 1972
ISBN 85177 836 4
*Operation Steinbock, He 177 Note:*
While, as an operation, Steinbock could only be considered an abysmal failure, the He 177s achieved some success. The more experienced crews carried maximum bomb loads and, climbing to 23,000 feet while still over German territory, approached their target in a shallow dive, attaining speeds in excess of 430 mph, at which night fighters could not intercept and anti-aircraft fire could not follow them.
page 346 - "The Warplanes of the Third Reich" - William Green copyright 1970, SBN 356 02382 6
anyone got db-604 engine sound or video?
U r hilarious! Subscribed.
cool logo, my dude
Did the RLM ever see an aircraft design and not think “well we should at least make a few of them”? A stock of spare parts will also be required. I suspect collusion with model aircraft manufacturers of the future.
drag in the front gives squirrely handling - ask a twin prop pilot about carrier landings
(hears reference to something called "darkly comedic"): oh, honey, no
I wonder if the companies could have simultaneously designed alternatives with hydraulics (Focke Wulf) and four standard engines. Like the Manchester to Lancaster...
That Jumo 222 could also be considered an 'inline radial'.
The moment you said," flying power station", all i could think of is robert palmer singing " bang a Goring,get it on"!!!😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Sorry, '80s music joke
12:30 "The Flying Power Station" sounds like a 1970s prog rock band
"And Germany just needed to remember KISS: I was made for lovin' you, baby, and you were made for lovin' me".
My friend,
i wrtite you respectfully because i don´t pretend to screw your comment but i think that. even you are right, still it was useless for the luftwaffe to have heavy bombers for this stage of the war when the heavy allied bombing campaign had begun, and when the mustang p-51 had appeared and was close to perform his escort missions over the occupied Europe specially accompanying allied bombers all the way.
I think that for this moment of the war it was an academic issue; see the only possible meaning for a long range strategical aircraft woud have been it to be able to support the submarines of the kriegsmarine that were passing by a very terrible moment and for this the germans needed a twin engined long range aircraft more than a four engine heayv bomber type aircraft that would be less agile to face the allied fighters over the atlantic ocean.
because to talk about long range heavy bomber was simply out of time for Germany; no matter how sucessful would have been the he-177 or the fw 191 still a twin engined nightfighter was much more important for the germans that had begun to deal with the non-stop campaign of the allied air forces.
The germans really committed a big mistake when decided not to pay attention to the fw ta154 twin engined fighter or to put aside the hs-129 uhu that would have been much more useful for germany than good heavy bombers. Hitler and his subordinate hermann goering lacked of imagination, them never looked for the constant improvement of the v-1, them never thought about putting a smaller version of the junkers jumo 004 engine on the v-1, neither tried to cancel the he-162 and use his resources for more assembly plants for the V-1 with these improvements.
that availability of improved versions of the V-1 would have created really terrible problems to the allies forcing them to a hysterical campaign for destruction of any possible ramp of the v-1 inside Germany, bringing the germans the chance of building fake ramps, also or sending night waves of the v-1 against Antwerp, and allied air bases inside france, forcing allied fighters to state of constant alert for the chase of these V-1s.
And the necessary aircraft for bombing the production plants, ramps and destruction of the V-1s once on the air, would have deviated many important resources of the allied air forces, bringing some of the necessary relief that the german population was very needed, R
Only Napier sabre ever made coupled engine concept work on the Typhoon and Tempest fighters and even that had lots of problems and was replaced by the Bristol Centaurus as soon as possible
I stopped listening at "24 cylinder liquid cooled inline engines". That would be one heck of a crankshaft.
I would think they would use the master con rod idea like they do in a radial engine, where (in this case) one of the four conrods connects to the crank and the other three connect to the first one, it's how they do radial engines, and it keeps the crank within the bounds of sanity.
@@CrusaderSports250 I am sure it was a slip of the tongue. He pretty much has to have meant "liquid cooled X-24 engine". Nobody every got one of those into service during WWII, although quite a few people tried.
Hey IHYLS could you please make a video about the polish pzl.23 karaś light bomber?
Fun fact it was the first plane to bomb german soil in ww2 :)
No weird Blohm & Voss design?
Can someone explain why the drag of two more propellers would make dive bombing too difficult. Dive bomber were equipped with powerful dive brakes because they needed extra drag to control speed in a near vertical drive. Maybe extra propellers would eliminate the need for sperate dive brakes all together, and you can reduce propeller drag by increasing power, so I suspect there might be some other reason than simple excess drag.
How the drag gets distributed is very important
It's also the weight of two additional engines further out that's an issue.
@@gratefulguy4130 Why?
@@wbertie2604 Why?
@@gort8203 because wings flex. Weight further out needs sufficient structure to avoid, on pulling out of a dive, the wings failing in the outboard section unless you use an incredibly strong and thus heavy outer wing structure. And then, with more weight outboard due to the heavier structure, you need to strengthen the inner wing more. Before long, the wing gets too heavy and the thing can barely fly. If the weight is inboard, you can make a strong centre section, which is short and also relatively thick, without excessive overall weight.
There are some options with less conventional structures such as very thick skins and using steel, but very few aircraft have used such techniques because they haven't really been all that successful. At least for subsonic aircraft.
Ironic and darkly comedic. Exactly as all things should be.
When you try to build a tool to lots of different jobs, it will do those jobs poorly, and non e of them well compared to specialist tools. Example: Swiss army knife. A great tool, I have a couple - but only used for hiking. For every other job, I use specialist tools like screwdrivers - faster, easier, more reliable. The Nazis tried to make everything DO everything - the Allies went with specialist tools, to do THAT job really well.
It's funny how people question why the RAF stuck with rifle calibre defensive armourments on its bombers but remain silent of the Germans doing the same.
Germany didn't though. It's not universal, but there's a few German mid to late war bombers with 20mm cannon as defensive weapons.
Because they switched to 13mm pretty early & even used 20mm.
The Brits just rocked rifle only for way too long
@malusignatius He177 - still had 1 7.92mm machine gun, alongside 213mmhwchine guns and 2 20mm cannon, and the Do 317 still had 2 7.92mm machine guns plus 3 13mm machine guns and a 15mm cannon.the Fw181 had 4 7.92mm machine guns plus 2 20mm cannons. So, although they were moving to the larger calibre guns, they were still relying on the smaller calibre weapons. Only Junkers had ditched the 7.92mm guns.
@gratefulguy4130 only Junkers, of the major design companies, dropped the 7.92mm guns, the rest of them kept them.
@@gratefulguy4130 I think it was because British just had so much .303 plus no real chance (at the time) of getting anything else.
Nazi Germany's long Range Bomber program and other better thought out Aircraft really die when Walther Wever was killed in an Aircrash in 1936. He championed strategic Bombing as a means to defeat an Enemy, he supported servearl long range Bomber programs he knew the importance of having long range Bomber in any future War with Russia or Europe, Those that replaced him though championed short range Bombers and Dive Bombers, they all fell for the quick victory, and failed to see the short coming of their Medium Bombers once they were no longer tied to combined support of ground forces, those short comings would first surface during the Battle of Britain, and then amplified in the East against Russia whom quickly moved all its production factories out of range of the Luftwaffe's Bomber Forces the other side of the Ural Mountians.
Even once they realised their mistakes instead of just building a larg Four Engined Heavy, they instead tried to turning the tried and tested Meduim format into a fast medium with a larger payload.
If building multi cyclinder engines had been possible I am the USA would have tried the same and even they ran into the same sort of issues with the Later Pratt and Whitney multi cylinder engines in the B29 Bomber.
The other limiting factor even if they had the equivalent of a Lancaster if B17. Then they would have needed the equivalent Me or FW version of the Mustang escort fighter.
Like most plans German military planners came up with in the inter war years, all were unravelled once the Nazi's came to power. German military re-arming never reached its planned completion date because Hitler was a gambler when his Gamble invading Poland set WW2 rolling the Military was not really ready for the forthcoming conflict especially and long conflict on serveral fronts ,luckly for the world it was that way though millions had the pay with their lives. Thanks for another intresting insite into Aircraft that never really mad it into combat 😮
Bomber B was B TO THE BONE.
Seriously, though, I’m surprised they never tried a electric aircraft. Single power plant centrally mounted inline engine driving a generator powering twin electric motors. It could be very streamlined, but, the technology just wasn’t there.
HE 177 was not a twin-engine.
It had four engines, two per engine nacelle and because they were packed in so tightly, they overheated rapidly, which was a major cause of the near constant engine fires
@2:32......maybe a different shape would have caused fewer issues....just sayin'.
So they overengineered V engines by trying to recreate radials but accidentally invented hyperengines with even worse cooling.
Only Germany man,
They were not trying to create a radial engine, or they would have made one. On a per cylinder displacement basis liquid cooled engines have advantages, and more cylinders meant more power, which is why Napier pursued an H-24 design. A lot of development went into the DB V-12s. Given the stress the German aero industry was under, mating two of them to produce a 24-cylinder engine was a shortcut to developing an H-24 rather than a radial.
Cooling the engine itself wasn't really the problem, the problem was oil leaks that pooled in the nacelle. That's what caught fire. I suspect that two V-12s mated to a combination drive unit had a lot more potential oil leaks than a single V-12.
The U.S. pursued development of the Allison V3420, an engine comprised of 2 Allison V1710 12 cylinder engines. The Italians built a 24 cylinder engine in the late 1920s and early 1930s, IIRC.
The Russians tried a lot of odd engine designs, too.
I think just about everyone tried _something_ along this line.
Just how many models of twin engine aircraft did the Germans have?
24 minutes where y'all at
The He 177 was four engined not twin engine
Technically, the DB 610 is one engine, even if functionally barely so.
I thought it had a twin propeller set one behind the other that spun in different direction
@@richmorg8196 no. There are a few engines like that, such as the Double Mamba of the Fairey Gannet, but the DB-610 has only one prop.
The fw 191 look like it stole the cockpit from a b-29 to me.
The He-111 and other German designs might beg to differ.
The He 177 was a four engine, one engine infront the other hence overheating and catching fire.
they were packed in pairs side-by-side and geared together
@@EngineEnginer Thank you for that. I don't know where the myth that these engines were connected in tandem comes from but this is the second time I've seen it today.
Avro Manchester FTW ...
''Babe, wake up. IHYLS just dropped a new vid.''
Please get rid of the bot voice.
There are millions of native English speakers: use one to narrate this wonderful subject content.
Yeah, hate to break it to you but I am pretty sure that's actually his voice, not a bot. I can recall a video some time back when he had been sick and his voice was a bit different, hence the reason I don't think he uses a bot
These bot commenters are getting out of hand.
@@southronjr1570
Sorry, almost every word shows inflections that are not human...
every word is broken into a single non- flowing part of the sentence...
each word also has a rise and fall from the start of the word to the "back end" of the word....
completely artificial/mechanical/bot.
@@JohnSmith-pl2bk Have you ever tried to read text out loud? Takes a lot of practice to talk expressively and naturally when you read something.
You could say that it tanked!
Kinda like a 2 engine B29
"Loftwarfa " ?
What a mess!!!
Sadly, I will no longer be watching any more videos on RUclips. RUclips has decided that they want to monetize everything to the point where you’re watching a car show every four minutes unless you buy a subscription well you know what RUclips you can pound sand
I watch these videos on brave browser. Cuts out all the ads and i can watch these videos from start to finish without any ads. But as soon as ads eventually appear on this browser, i will be turning off youtube too. Its painful.
Get thee to the Fox of Fire, and add the Ultimate Blocker of Ad. Did so years ago, & it works verra' well if kept to date, nary a promo in sight...
@@gchampi2 thanks for the advice I will definitely try it
Dornyeah no , Dorni-er yes
Interestingly, the Ju 288 technically won the _Bomber B_ competition, but Junkers ran into a lot of issues getting the Jumo 222 delivered for the plane and by late 1942, the later Ju 288 prototypes were using the Daimler-Benz DB 610 engine. Had the Jumo 222 actually worked correctly by early 1942, it's likely the first Ju 288 units would would have started operations by early 1943.
maybe you should watch the video before commenting
He-177 was Bomber A, Ju-288 was Bomber B.
KISS = Keep It Simple Stalin?
I hope this is ai voice speaking
Loftwafaa
First! Hehehehe
KISS does not translate to German.
KISS is an acronym for Keep It Straight and Simple not keep it simply stupid
That's not what I was taught. Straight had nothing to do with the acronym.
@@WALTERBROADDUS straight mean nothing fancy just plain even boring, but a safe bet
@@samaguirre3283 the kiss principle was taught to me many decades ago as, "Keep it simple and Stupid." It's also the Google definition and Wikipedia one.
Luftuafa never exhisted, spells correct, please: LUFTVAFE !
Obviously, when they were designing this stuff, they weren't thinking about the poor mechanics who would be forced to service it in sub-zero temperatures on the Russian Front. Same with tanks. Coupled engines-the British tried it, the Germans tried it, and then the American$$$$ tried it. They needed a 2000hp engine, fast, and could have simply built the R-2800, reverse-engineered, from a captured Thunderbolt. They were just wedded to the Schnellbomber concept, and couldn't shake it. 4 BMW 801's would have made a nice high-speed bomber if you leave off all the 'accessories' like turrets and dive brakes. You might lose a few more planes that way, but you're not losing a large crew of gunners in the process.
:
Luffftwaffe!
Only 0.30 into the video and “Stop…STOP…..CUT!”
Luftwaffe is pronounced like “Looft-Vaffe”. In German ‘w’ makes an English sound like a ‘v’. There is no English ‘w’ sound in Luftwaffe. It’s not difficult.
If you’re going to make videos about something, it’s worth spending a little time and effort to get words that are important, common or central to the theme sounding correct.
Another example for Americans: It’s not pronounced “Ay-dolf Hitler”. It’s pronounced “Ar-dolf Hitler”.
Now…..let’s carry on with the video……😅
Why is this guy incapable of pronouncing the name of the German airforce?
Amusing that FW's final design was effectively an imitation of British 4 - engine bomber.
The Germans were always inclined to get too fancy.
Even in the UK, they had the Halifax swapped to a four engined design prior to any prototype due to scepticism about the Vulture. Not that HP wanted to use the Merlin either. The RAF was very keen on putting Sabres in things, though, although in the end only the Typhoon and Tempest actually did.
@@wbertie2604 And the Lancaster was just a straight up 4 Merlin engined version of the twin Vulture Manchester. The scepticism was well placed.
Napier seemed to be one of the few companies that had success with multi-bank aero engines.
@@chrishartley4553 and Napier had issues
In defence of Japanese Kamikaze planes they typically didnt burst into flames themselves .......... so much for superior German Engineering , but as anyone whose owned a German Car will tell you "over engineeered" isnt the same as "superior engineering" . The moral of the story ? Buy Japanese
You judge the entire German car industry which is a different branch with multiple factories world wide on a WW2 prototype plane they used as a testbed for a electrical system ? What is wrong with your unreasonable hatred against anything german ?
I'm just gonna stop this now. Take some classes and learn to talk.
Your voice. It's unendurable. Sorry, and all power to you.
This video drones on and on, its just too long on this subject.
Annoying AI voice
if u think a star of david is comedic, i sudgjest to do some real home work, havaraa coin, end of depression coin of usa 1932 AND may i add.... the fact u should check the nr of officcers and wehrmacht soldiers who where jew or from jewish decent.... and then , i wonder, dont u all ask questions to this subject? or are u to indoctrinated?
I think the commentator was saying the similarity of the engine to the star of David was amusing, given the Germans dislike of anything relating to the Jews, he never seid he thought the star itself or what it stands for is amusing.
Yet another WW2 German airframe designed around non-existent engines.