A quick note: A "Diagonal" or "Mixed" compressor combines axial and radial flow elements. Someone on my discord reminded me they existed. What's your favorite "generation" of fighter jet? For me, it's probably Gen 4, as I appreciate the aerodynamic advances of the generation, although the gritty nature of Gen 3 is also very pleasing to me, and I will certainly do a build from each generation for the UFB soon!
I think it was History Channels' Dogfights where I heard the Gens for aircraft overall,not just jets. Gen I was WWI all the way to WWII,any and all pistons essentially,Gen II was the Korea War era,gun based transonics,Gen III covered 'Nam,the supersonic missile users,Gen IV was after 'Nam,all the fly by wire goodness,and Gen V was the 1990s onwards,all the supersonic stealth aircraft that were otherwise similar to Gen IV. There's also all those Gen IV+,++,or 4.5s where they try to be economical choices that can keep up with Gen V. It might be fairly unspecific,but hey,it's far better then War Thunders' tier system.
That turbocharger animation seems to show the turbine side, not the compressor. It could work for the compressor analogy if you were to run the animation in reverse, though there are some subtle differences between the turbine and compressor shapes.
Design request: Modernized OV-10, it should have all of its original feature kept the same or improved. It’s M60s replaced with 4 20mm. An extra Hardpoint on the wings beside the already existing one. Focused on supporting special forces (like dropping off a 9 man squad out of two OV-10s and then later on maybe dropping off supplies while giving light CAS support). Its feature to put a 20mm rotary canon would be cool to keep as an option. And more if I think about! Please I think it would be a cool idea.
As an aircraft mechanic I physically winced when I saw the landing gear retract into that little gap between the fuselage and engines. Maintenance downtimes on this aircraft would have been outright insane, even factory assembly would have been extremely challenging
"Its more likely that the wing-sweep of the 262 was a result of the weight and balance being different than expected" If i remember correctly thats actually, word for word, *exactly* the reason.
You are correct. On Feb 8 1940 there was a meeting on 262 project definition and construction status. Woldemar Voight, head of the project office, stated in a later interview that that the reason for choosing the straight wing had nothing to do with high-speed aerodynamics: “BWM soon ascertained that is turbojet would be still larger and appreciably heavier than the company’s least sanguine revised calculations had suggested, thus presenting us with serious centre of gravity problems. Aircraft development had progressed too far for us to dramatically revise its layout and we were forced to introduce what we considered a somewhat inelegant ‘fix’ in the form of swept outer wing panels to resolve the CG difficulties presented by the heavier engines. Thus, it was to be purely fortuitous that the Me262 was to become the world first operational fighter featuring wing sweepback; a radical departure that, at this stage at least, reflected no attempt to reduce the effects of compressibility.”
@@air-headedaviator1805 That's not weird, they either did not have the same CG problem or they applied a different design solution. I can think of at least 2 other ways they could choose to resolve the issue if they had it. In any case they clearly did not see a need to sweep the wings to make the airplane faster.
@@Krasniye I don't see how sweeping the outer wings panels was necessary to have tricycle gear. The position of the inner panels did not change. And Voight made no mention of that in relation to the wing sweep.
I think it’s interesting how the whole “first gen jet fighters were just prop fighters with jets” is oddly scientific-when using the scientific method, it is most useful to only change one variable at a time. That way, you can isolate the changes in outcome as being (partially) determined by the factor you changed. With first gen fighters, airplane designers and manufacturers would have know well what a prop plane of similar design would need in terms of materials, fuel, and maintenance, but that couldn’t have been the case with jet fighters. So, if they only change the method of propulsion (and as little else as possible) they can figure out what the basic needs of a jet fighter are as compared to a prop fighter, and go from there. (As an aside, I highly doubt this was unintentional, even the military industrial complex has standards.)
In reality, they already had these airframes. Add some reinforcement and slap a bigger engine on it is exactly what happened. Nothing really scientific about that. Once they reached even higher speeds the engine outperformed the airframe. Thus they slowly needed to reinvent the wheel decade after decade.
Now do the alternate reality where we go back in time and subject the Wright Brothers to Little Dark Age edits of fighter jet gun-cams, A Clockwork Orange style, just before they build their first prototype.
@@mirrorslash028 "are you joking, what is that, how the F did we get here? US??? WE ARE HOW?! man... what the, How would i even? oh? _OH._ that _might_ actually work...."
People should keep in mind that turbojet engines guzzle more fuel than pistons when used at low speeds and low altitudes. When used at high speed and high altitude jets are quite efficient compared to pistons.
yeah, that's the big thing with turbines in any shape or form: efficacy at high speed, super inefficant at low speeds. It's also why turbines never took off for cars and had rather limited success in trains.
@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 to be fair with cars jet engines are not practical no matter what rpm they dont themselves produce much torque without massive gear reductions and throttle response is horrid and fuel effiecncy for cars sure if you added those gear reductions great now you have a car with infinitely variable torque (theoretically) but now how are you going to put that power to the ground practically so you've just invented a slow car with infinite torque thats measured fuel economy is tens of gallons per mile
I saw a me 262 taxi across an airport today and got to see a jumo 004 cutaway last week. It's truly impressive hearing the sound of such an old aircraft and seeing a cutaway of one of it's engines just makes you marvel at the engeneering and manufacturing they where able to do 80 years ago, I don't want to know how many manhours it took to manufacture one engine.
There are no original Me 262s flying in the world today, but five reproduction 262s were built in the USA in the 1990s and early 2000s, of which four are currently airworthy. They use the GE J85 engine, not the Jumo.
@@gort8203As far as I know due to material shortages the original 262 engines had very short service lives. They were built with what little resources the Germans had on hand, so they couldn't handle the high stress environment maintained inside an engine for long periods of time. Modern reproductions improved on this by having access to better materials, greatly extending the service life of a single engine.
The one I saw was a reproduction owned by the Messerschmidt foundation and operated by Airbus. The cutaway jumo wasn't mounted to a plane since it's a cutaway.
I like to imagine generations as a graph, Gen 1 were WW2 jets like Me-262, P-80, Meteore and anything thats post WW2. Gen 2 starts with early vers of jets near the early 50s during the Korean era. Gen 3 starts with aircraft with proper radars and roles assigned to them like F-4, MiG-21. Then certain Gen 3 were upgraded to Gen 3.5 or 3+ (whatever term you like). Upgraded F-4s, MiG-21s, MiG-23, certain jets like MiG-25s, MiG-27 included. Gen 4 starts with better everything but now roles are standardized towards multirole, very few examples are single roles only. Gen 4.5 or 4+ is just lack of full stealth focus. Gen 5 is Stealth. In summary, Imagine a progress bar, some are near Gen 2 but not quite there yet, their still in the Gen 1 category, Some are near Gen 4 but still in Gen 3 category. I.e. Early gen 3, Late gen 3, Early gen 1, Late gen 1, Early gen 4, Late gen 4, etc etc.
I always classified them as: Gen 1- subsonic, guns only Gen 2 - transsonic, guns only, in rare cases carrying small amounts of air to air missiles Gen 3 - supersonic, focus on large, bulky interceptors, with main focus on fighting with missiles, or as I like to call them "missile trucks" Gen 4 - supersonic, focus on smaller, nimble fighters Gen 4.5 - more advanced/upgraded/adapted for use of electronic warfare systems, sometimes coated in radar absorbing paint for reducing (not deleting entirely) radar cross section. In short (excluding stealth as it is) cheaper option for gen 5 Gen 5 - Stealth And that is, more or less, how it was explained to me
Gen 6 - Optionally manned, stealth, capable of interfacing with UAV wingmen, high-supersonic speeds Gen 7 - Unmanned, Stealth, Near-Hypersonic speeds, stratospheric flight ceiling Gen 8 - Space
Gotta love how America when designing jets were like: Gen 3: AAAA MISSILE TRUCKS LONG RANGE IS THE FUTURE OF AIR-TO-AIRT Gen 4: wait go back let’s make a really good dogfighter because Vietnam sucked Gen 4.5-5: Missle Truck, BVR is god
If I remember correctly, the pull cord for the Jumo 004 didn't spool up the turbine itself, it started a 2 cylinder lawnmower engine that took about 5 minutes to spool up the turbine. Even crazier if you ask me lol
7:10 the jumo 004 engine was started up with a gasoline engine putting out about 10HP. That engine was ITSELF started with a pull cord or electric starter
My one note is that muzzle flash and blast from the guns could be a problem for visibility especially in darker conditions but possibly even in daytime. Moving them to the sides of the nose would help if there’s room for that
7:20 The 262 actually did have a starter motor for each engine, specifically a 2-stroke 10hp gasoline engine, which had an electric starter, but also a pullcord as a backup option. Just saying it because you make it sound like the pullcord is what starts the jet engine itself.
The Meteor's engines were originally almost flush with the wing but speed increased when they made the nacelles protrude forward. It gave less disturbed flow over the wings for a good bit more top speed.
I'm suprised that would didn't use some of the more experimental tech/concepts of the era, like the J37 turbojet, an axel engine designed for the L-133 Starjet, which were supposed to be considerably more powerful then any of their counterparts, and/or the more extreme swept wings of the Me262HGIII which if pared with the previously mentioned engines offer a significant potential upgrade in performance. also, Centrifugal compressors can be seen on later designs, often being pared WITH axel compressors to create what is called a Axial-Centrifugal combined compressor, this is actually rather common for turboprops and helicopters, but since flyout doesn't have Centrifugal compressors it's a moot point anyway.
This has got to be one of the coolest planes you've ever done! I absolutely love the style of gen 1 jets. I design quite a few starships out of legos based on some of the design choices you used. They may not be the most practical but gen 1's seem to fit the esthetic really well in my opinion. Well done!
Super interesting, I think you did a good job exploring the design philosophy and technology of the time, and I'm impressed the game gave it such realistic performance.
It’s interesting that of the first generation jets, only the Lockheed P-80 (later F-80) and the de Havilland Vampire had a long operational career. I think the center-mounted engine design was the reason why.
This video conflates wing sweep with area rule, but these are not related. The F-86 has no area rule with a swept wing, while the F-104 has some area rule with a straight wing. They are different principles at work and do not depend on each other.
@iatsd They aren’t really interrelated, either. Fineness ratio of a wing is interrelated to area rule. The idea that any significant or abrupt change in cross section will induce shockwaves and flow separation-increasing transonic drag and possibly leading to upset in the same manner as a stall. Swept wings are _one way_ of increasing fineness ratio.. just as a wasp waist and shock bodies are two completely unrelated ways to achieve area rule.
Don't forget the jet bombers - Arado 234, Junkers 287, Nakajima J9Y1 and a whole slew of experimentals just after WW2. Also, mounting your engine close to the fuselage comes with bad sides as well as good. The good is reduced engine-out asymmetry. The bad is uneven airflow caused by the fuselage, and how much damage results if the the engine spits out chunks of metal (which happened distressingly often). Possibly also you might risk the engines ingesting gases when the guns fire. This caused issues for several real-world aircraft.
4:29 The difference between the late war props and the 1st gen jets was, the propellor aircraft had reached the peak of their design and they couldn’t improve the piston engine any more. While the 1st gen jets were already just as fast, while still in their infancy, they still had a lot of development ahead of them. Jets were taking off where piston engines peaked (excuse the pun). The problem with the 262 was, too few were constructed too late to make a difference to the outcome of the war.
It’s hilarious how simple design choices can lead to such similar outcomes. You’ve built an A-37 Dragonfly. They look so incredibly similar. Though due to its more advanced engines, and even with a side by side two seat cockpit and enormous canopy, the Dragonfly has a slight performance edge in speed and clean rate of climb. But your design is dramatically better armed for AtA combat as you’ve got quad 20mm vs the A-37’s single 7.62mm minigun. The amazing amount of time you put in to creating your plane was well worth it. It looks really good. And you are dead on that the camo and panels with rivets seal the deal.
Also to everyone else, do not get this mixed up: The Me262 was the first COMBAT OPERATIONAL jet fighter. NOT the first jet aircraft! in fact like messier showed before, the He280 came before the Me262, but the title of first true jet aircraft is somewhat disputed. what isn't disputed however was the ME262 being the first jet aircraft to see combat.
I discovered your channel about the same time when I discovered Flyout. And they are GREAT ! It's really cool and satisfying to see someone good at what they're building. I was wondering though, could you make a linked video in the description that leads to the full building process, that could be really useful to learn
the swept wings on the me 262 were not even for aerodynamic purposes but because they had to manufacture it that way, if i remember correctly it had smthg to do with the engines
the 004 engines were heavier than the original design spec so they had to be shifted back to keep the centre of gravity the same, so instead of a full redesign they just swept the wings
@@gort8203 actually, from an aerodynamic standpoint the design was very much capable of transonic/supersonic flight. The only thing that would have prevented it from actually going above Mach 1 in level flight would be the engines. It’s thin blended-wing-fuselage reduced transonic drag as the narrow-front wide-back design significantly reduced the affects of compressibility, something that it’s design predecessor, the P-38, suffered from significantly.
There is zero chance of that design ever getting remotely close to supersonic with the engines of the time. And the airframe itself wouldn't survive it regardless.
wait this is like literally a fully in depth sim where you build the aircraft?!?! even the damage models?! this is crazy and youre definitely right about how cad modeling IN games is a double edged sword, i play JNO, SP, KSP, SE, Beamng, brickrigs (not often), gearblocks, scrap mechanic, dream car builder and like 1 or 2 more that are almost kinda like that but this game blows every single one ive listed out of the water in terms of building, only trouble with these games is that now you have to spend most your time doing something akin to what the developers do when adding planes to a game like war thunder instead of actually flying your the aircraft and using it for intended purposes, still though flyout seems badass might check it out
I love what you did with the design on this thing, it’s oddly satisfying to look at, but at the same time I wouldn’t want to see that thing coming at me in the skies
A lot of early jet got their basic design modernised with swept wings and more powerful engines. Such as the Fury -> F86 and the attacker -> swift also the sea hawk eventually evolving into the hunter and also the F9 panther -> F9 Cougar.
The first US Military jet was the P-59 Airacomet though. The Junkers Jumo 004 turbojet was used in the Avia S.92, but the Messerschmitt Me 262 in German service during WWII was a BMW 003 or BMW 004 which had a slightly higher performance than the Junkers Jumo 004
Fun fact: Yes, this abomination does exist. Yes, it was mass produced. And yes, the concept of it probably was made up while someone was drunk. Look up the "PZL M-15" xD
Oh god, I just looked that up That is disgusting and I love it. Apparently it was designed in Poland, but it looks more like something you’d find thrown together from scrap metal in Louisiana or Alabama.
You see a variety of WWII aircraft with sweeps on the leading edge, trailing edge, or both to change the location of the center of lift and/or pressure.
The big shift from Gen-3 to Gen-4 is Low Wing-loading Blended fuselage design (from NASA's lifting body experiments) + Data-link. Euro-Fighter Typhoon gets a pass on this though and goes 4+ for also having Supercruise. Dassault Raphale is more in line with Gen 4 as it's a blended wing fuselage delta design.
Although there may be tragedy in your life, there's always a possibility to triumph. It doesn't matter who you are, where you come from. The ability to triumph begins with you. Always.
I'd say the FJ-1 would be Gen 1. Granted it had a very likited production entered production. It went through a serious amount of RND to become the F-86 tho
Pretty decent first effort. I would've done the Gen 1 with different goals in mind. For ex., one engine in the fuselage w/intakes at the wing roots; landing gear set in the wings, opening outward for a wider stance. Ideally it would simpler to maintain, use less fuel than a twin, and be easier to takeoff & land. Kinda like an F9F Panther, a late '40s design featured in "The Bridges at Toko-Ri".
I miss one of his old videos where after a missile that he made in the video came back after missing it target the first time and doing almost a 360 lock on it and still hit it. I miss that video. I wish she kept that one.
God damn! I wish your Plane was real because then it would be in WarThunder and i could fly it there. What you did there is a really beautiful design. I love it :)
Always a good day when Messier-82 releases a video. Will you be doing carrier aircraft in this series? Requesting a supersonic stealth attack helicopter that uses canard rotor wing technology for VTOL/low speed flight but turns into an oblique wing for forward and supersonic flight.
I really like the shape of the fuselage and cockpit on this one! I think if you decide to make the UFB's foray into "2nd gen" jet fighters, you should be fine with reusing the fuselage from this one!
I have nothing intellectual to say about gen 1 Fighters. But the Meteor in WT slaps. It's got enough power to climb in to a nice altitude, and excellent manoeuvreability to out turn most planes on the first pass. And it has the optimal armament.
my favourite ww2 jet fact is that the English and Germans separately designed two different jet propulsion systems and both debuted them on a fighter jet that was put into service at very similar times
There were more drastic versions of the me262 and the me262 was intended to have the engines inside the main airframe but they were too big and so needed to be on the wings. They were the hg variants. The first one wasn’t really a drastic version, it simply had the airframe smoothed out as to remove parasitic drag due to how rough the standard me262 was. The hg 2 would have 35 degree swept wings, an experimental v-tail, and would’ve had improved engines though it crashed if I remember correctly due to engine failure. The hg 3 had fewer changes from the hg2 where it simply had again improved engines, an improved airframe based around the hg2, the engines wound now be inside the airframe (just as originally intended for the og me262 but the engines came out too big for it so they were now on the wings) and the wings would now be swept at 45 degrees. The hg 3 was estimated to be able to reach around I believe 1100km/h or else it was 1000km/h but the final variant was never made due to the war ending due to them losing. I do agree that the standard me262 definitely was quite standard compared to the planes at the time though, not being majorly different from the other props except for the engines.
![Twenty One Pilots - The Line (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XCz7WUotXs8/mqdefault.jpg)
A quick note: A "Diagonal" or "Mixed" compressor combines axial and radial flow elements. Someone on my discord reminded me they existed. What's your favorite "generation" of fighter jet? For me, it's probably Gen 4, as I appreciate the aerodynamic advances of the generation, although the gritty nature of Gen 3 is also very pleasing to me, and I will certainly do a build from each generation for the UFB soon!
Me personally, I like the Me 262, but the generations, I like the 3rd, 4th, and fifth. Thanks for the great content!
I think it was History Channels' Dogfights where I heard the Gens for aircraft overall,not just jets.
Gen I was WWI all the way to WWII,any and all pistons essentially,Gen II was the Korea War era,gun based transonics,Gen III covered 'Nam,the supersonic missile users,Gen IV was after 'Nam,all the fly by wire goodness,and Gen V was the 1990s onwards,all the supersonic stealth aircraft that were otherwise similar to Gen IV.
There's also all those Gen IV+,++,or 4.5s where they try to be economical choices that can keep up with Gen V.
It might be fairly unspecific,but hey,it's far better then War Thunders' tier system.
You forgot to include the p59 in the beginning
That turbocharger animation seems to show the turbine side, not the compressor. It could work for the compressor analogy if you were to run the animation in reverse, though there are some subtle differences between the turbine and compressor shapes.
Design request: Modernized OV-10, it should have all of its original feature kept the same or improved. It’s M60s replaced with 4 20mm. An extra Hardpoint on the wings beside the already existing one. Focused on supporting special forces (like dropping off a 9 man squad out of two OV-10s and then later on maybe dropping off supplies while giving light CAS support). Its feature to put a 20mm rotary canon would be cool to keep as an option. And more if I think about! Please I think it would be a cool idea.
As an aircraft mechanic I physically winced when I saw the landing gear retract into that little gap between the fuselage and engines. Maintenance downtimes on this aircraft would have been outright insane, even factory assembly would have been extremely challenging
"The maintainer suicide rate isn't the only killing this aircraft is doing"
an engineer's dream is a mechanic's nightmare as they say
@UCuIJ-3SwPwFMMEpFXt6KyBwand a architects dream is the nightmare of a civil engineer
@@r1zmyAs a Mechanic, i 100% agree.
over the top engine access is what did it for me
W RUclips algorithm recommending the video when it actually came out
Fr
Fr
Fr fr
frrrrr
No notification tho...
"Its more likely that the wing-sweep of the 262 was a result of the weight and balance being different than expected"
If i remember correctly thats actually, word for word, *exactly* the reason.
You are correct. On Feb 8 1940 there was a meeting on 262 project definition and construction status. Woldemar Voight, head of the project office, stated in a later interview that that the reason for choosing the straight wing had nothing to do with high-speed aerodynamics:
“BWM soon ascertained that is turbojet would be still larger and appreciably heavier than the company’s least sanguine revised calculations had suggested, thus presenting us with serious centre of gravity problems. Aircraft development had progressed too far for us to dramatically revise its layout and we were forced to introduce what we considered a somewhat inelegant ‘fix’ in the form of swept outer wing panels to resolve the CG difficulties presented by the heavier engines. Thus, it was to be purely fortuitous that the Me262 was to become the world first operational fighter featuring wing sweepback; a radical departure that, at this stage at least, reflected no attempt to reduce the effects of compressibility.”
yep! And fun fact the 262 was originally designed as a tail dragger! So they had to sweep the wings also just to make a tricycle gear work
@@gort8203the weird thing about that is how the Heinkel design, He-280 used straight wings without needing that kinda balance.
@@air-headedaviator1805 That's not weird, they either did not have the same CG problem or they applied a different design solution. I can think of at least 2 other ways they could choose to resolve the issue if they had it. In any case they clearly did not see a need to sweep the wings to make the airplane faster.
@@Krasniye I don't see how sweeping the outer wings panels was necessary to have tricycle gear. The position of the inner panels did not change. And Voight made no mention of that in relation to the wing sweep.
''this one's just a prop fighter with a jet engine slapped on it'' me when J21RA/A21RB:
Me when yak 15
@@F15ESTRIKEEAGLE-iw9nl me when f9f
@@F15ESTRIKEEAGLE-iw9nlye but he actually mentioned that one
fun fact the late war japanese pusher prop would have had the same fate which is neat
@@errantalgae i guess, but the XP-55 looks almost identical to it
I think it’s interesting how the whole “first gen jet fighters were just prop fighters with jets” is oddly scientific-when using the scientific method, it is most useful to only change one variable at a time. That way, you can isolate the changes in outcome as being (partially) determined by the factor you changed. With first gen fighters, airplane designers and manufacturers would have know well what a prop plane of similar design would need in terms of materials, fuel, and maintenance, but that couldn’t have been the case with jet fighters. So, if they only change the method of propulsion (and as little else as possible) they can figure out what the basic needs of a jet fighter are as compared to a prop fighter, and go from there. (As an aside, I highly doubt this was unintentional, even the military industrial complex has standards.)
Why is that odd?
It was more a case of wartime pragmatic solutions- the more of existing production could be used the better it will be for rapid prototyping
LOL! I was reminded of the XF-88B
In reality, they already had these airframes. Add some reinforcement and slap a bigger engine on it is exactly what happened. Nothing really scientific about that. Once they reached even higher speeds the engine outperformed the airframe. Thus they slowly needed to reinvent the wheel decade after decade.
Now do the alternate reality where we go back in time and subject the Wright Brothers to Little Dark Age edits of fighter jet gun-cams, A Clockwork Orange style, just before they build their first prototype.
Every single pioneer at that time would've killed themselves on the spot
Little Dark Age edits?
@@mirrorslash028 "are you joking, what is that, how the F did we get here? US??? WE ARE HOW?! man... what the, How would i even? oh? _OH._ that _might_ actually work...."
“Imagine showing Tiktok to a caveman. Bro would spontaneously combust”
- MealTeam6
People should keep in mind that turbojet engines guzzle more fuel than pistons when used at low speeds and low altitudes. When used at high speed and high altitude jets are quite efficient compared to pistons.
yeah, that's the big thing with turbines in any shape or form: efficacy at high speed, super inefficant at low speeds. It's also why turbines never took off for cars and had rather limited success in trains.
@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 to be fair with cars jet engines are not practical no matter what rpm they dont themselves produce much torque without massive gear reductions and throttle response is horrid and fuel effiecncy for cars sure if you added those gear reductions great now you have a car with infinitely variable torque (theoretically) but now how are you going to put that power to the ground practically so you've just invented a slow car with infinite torque thats measured fuel economy is tens of gallons per mile
@@bluespidergaming7719 I'd recommend you check out the Chrysler Turbine car or the Rover-BRM
I saw a me 262 taxi across an airport today and got to see a jumo 004 cutaway last week.
It's truly impressive hearing the sound of such an old aircraft and seeing a cutaway of one of it's engines just makes you marvel at the engeneering and manufacturing they where able to do 80 years ago, I don't want to know how many manhours it took to manufacture one engine.
There are no original Me 262s flying in the world today, but five reproduction 262s were built in the USA in the 1990s and early 2000s, of which four are currently airworthy. They use the GE J85 engine, not the Jumo.
@@gort8203As far as I know due to material shortages the original 262 engines had very short service lives. They were built with what little resources the Germans had on hand, so they couldn't handle the high stress environment maintained inside an engine for long periods of time. Modern reproductions improved on this by having access to better materials, greatly extending the service life of a single engine.
The one I saw was a reproduction owned by the Messerschmidt foundation and operated by Airbus.
The cutaway jumo wasn't mounted to a plane since it's a cutaway.
@@mushroom_of_doom2148 And the sound you heard was unfortunately not representative of the Jumo.
@@gort8203 yes, sadly.
It still looked amazing and felt really cool seeing it in Action even though I didn't see it fly
Despite looking like P-59, you also inadvertently made your GT-45 look like Canada's CF-100 "Canuk", their 1st jet
It's got a hint of T-37 Tweet too!
Hey messier, hope you're doing well and are weel hydrated, eating well and taking care of yourself.
It also sort of looks like a CF-100, because I am obsessed and I see it in my dreams and anything with a slight resemblance is a CF-100
F-89
@@prex2000 CF-100 is right. It has the wing root engine placement. The F-89's are podded in the fuselage.
It took me forever to find a picture of the CF-100 Mark 3 that had the belly machine gun tray!
Amazing plane, the CF-100, and a fellow Canuck! But this plane, I was seeing a mix of the P-59 Airacomet and the T-37 Tweet myself.
@@chanman819 lol
There’s a unique sexiness to those really early jets that is unmatched by modern jets.
having watched almost all of these videos i love how much you can tell he’s improved at building the planes, but also editing videos too
Damn GT Motors is building a banger after banger. This is an extremely beautiful plane.
bro made a P-59
Bro made a P-59
I like to imagine generations as a graph, Gen 1 were WW2 jets like Me-262, P-80, Meteore and anything thats post WW2. Gen 2 starts with early vers of jets near the early 50s during the Korean era. Gen 3 starts with aircraft with proper radars and roles assigned to them like F-4, MiG-21. Then certain Gen 3 were upgraded to Gen 3.5 or 3+ (whatever term you like). Upgraded F-4s, MiG-21s, MiG-23, certain jets like MiG-25s, MiG-27 included. Gen 4 starts with better everything but now roles are standardized towards multirole, very few examples are single roles only.
Gen 4.5 or 4+ is just lack of full stealth focus. Gen 5 is Stealth.
In summary, Imagine a progress bar, some are near Gen 2 but not quite there yet, their still in the Gen 1 category, Some are near Gen 4 but still in Gen 3 category. I.e. Early gen 3, Late gen 3, Early gen 1, Late gen 1, Early gen 4, Late gen 4, etc etc.
I always classified them as:
Gen 1- subsonic, guns only
Gen 2 - transsonic, guns only, in rare cases carrying small amounts of air to air missiles
Gen 3 - supersonic, focus on large, bulky interceptors, with main focus on fighting with missiles, or as I like to call them "missile trucks"
Gen 4 - supersonic, focus on smaller, nimble fighters
Gen 4.5 - more advanced/upgraded/adapted for use of electronic warfare systems, sometimes coated in radar absorbing paint for reducing (not deleting entirely) radar cross section.
In short (excluding stealth as it is) cheaper option for gen 5
Gen 5 - Stealth
And that is, more or less, how it was explained to me
Gen 6 - Optionally manned, stealth, capable of interfacing with UAV wingmen, high-supersonic speeds
Gen 7 - Unmanned, Stealth, Near-Hypersonic speeds, stratospheric flight ceiling
Gen 8 - Space
Gotta love how America when designing jets were like:
Gen 3: AAAA MISSILE TRUCKS LONG RANGE IS THE FUTURE OF AIR-TO-AIRT
Gen 4: wait go back let’s make a really good dogfighter because Vietnam sucked
Gen 4.5-5: Missle Truck, BVR is god
@@Techno_IdiotoGen 9 - Rocinante
The way i remembered it was gen 4 was also the advent of multirole due to increasing better missiles and flexibility of the aircraft carrying them.
@@Techno_IdiotoSPACE
If I remember correctly, the pull cord for the Jumo 004 didn't spool up the turbine itself, it started a 2 cylinder lawnmower engine that took about 5 minutes to spool up the turbine. Even crazier if you ask me lol
14:14 that flaps lever reminds me of hollywood's cockpit
7:10 the jumo 004 engine was started up with a gasoline engine putting out about 10HP. That engine was ITSELF started with a pull cord or electric starter
My one note is that muzzle flash and blast from the guns could be a problem for visibility especially in darker conditions but possibly even in daytime. Moving them to the sides of the nose would help if there’s room for that
my man can be hired by gaijin at that point
Hell no, we can not allow the snail to steal this man's soul and turn his creations into premium packs.
7:20 The 262 actually did have a starter motor for each engine, specifically a 2-stroke 10hp gasoline engine, which had an electric starter, but also a pullcord as a backup option. Just saying it because you make it sound like the pullcord is what starts the jet engine itself.
The Meteor's engines were originally almost flush with the wing but speed increased when they made the nacelles protrude forward. It gave less disturbed flow over the wings for a good bit more top speed.
Worth noting as well, no wartime Meteor was capable of exceeding 450 mph.
@@TheAneewAony "It's free top speed"
@@anthonyrowland9072 True, this simply illustrates how many years behind the British were
I'm suprised that would didn't use some of the more experimental tech/concepts of the era, like the J37 turbojet, an axel engine designed for the L-133 Starjet, which were supposed to be considerably more powerful then any of their counterparts, and/or the more extreme swept wings of the Me262HGIII which if pared with the previously mentioned engines offer a significant potential upgrade in performance.
also, Centrifugal compressors can be seen on later designs, often being pared WITH axel compressors to create what is called a Axial-Centrifugal combined compressor, this is actually rather common for turboprops and helicopters, but since flyout doesn't have Centrifugal compressors it's a moot point anyway.
That is one of the prettiest jet planes I've ever seen. I want a poster of it
Love this idea! Would be very interested in seeing a mark 2 version of this with some of the "time period" relevant upgrades.
This has got to be one of the coolest planes you've ever done! I absolutely love the style of gen 1 jets. I design quite a few starships out of legos based on some of the design choices you used. They may not be the most practical but gen 1's seem to fit the esthetic really well in my opinion. Well done!
Super interesting, I think you did a good job exploring the design philosophy and technology of the time, and I'm impressed the game gave it such realistic performance.
It’s interesting that of the first generation jets, only the Lockheed P-80 (later F-80) and the de Havilland Vampire had a long operational career. I think the center-mounted engine design was the reason why.
This video conflates wing sweep with area rule, but these are not related. The F-86 has no area rule with a swept wing, while the F-104 has some area rule with a straight wing. They are different principles at work and do not depend on each other.
That's not quite true. *In practice* they are interrelated, but they're not inter*dependent* which is what he was implying
@@iatsd They both reduce transonic drag. Separately. He implied that area rule is related to and a product of wing sweep. Wrong.
@iatsd
They aren’t really interrelated, either.
Fineness ratio of a wing is interrelated to area rule. The idea that any significant or abrupt change in cross section will induce shockwaves and flow separation-increasing transonic drag and possibly leading to upset in the same manner as a stall.
Swept wings are _one way_ of increasing fineness ratio.. just as a wasp waist and shock bodies are two completely unrelated ways to achieve area rule.
Don't forget the jet bombers - Arado 234, Junkers 287, Nakajima J9Y1 and a whole slew of experimentals just after WW2.
Also, mounting your engine close to the fuselage comes with bad sides as well as good. The good is reduced engine-out asymmetry. The bad is uneven airflow caused by the fuselage, and how much damage results if the the engine spits out chunks of metal (which happened distressingly often). Possibly also you might risk the engines ingesting gases when the guns fire. This caused issues for several real-world aircraft.
Nice, RUclips is speedy to give me those videos
4:29 The difference between the late war props and the 1st gen jets was, the propellor aircraft had reached the peak of their design and they couldn’t improve the piston engine any more. While the 1st gen jets were already just as fast, while still in their infancy, they still had a lot of development ahead of them. Jets were taking off where piston engines peaked (excuse the pun).
The problem with the 262 was, too few were constructed too late to make a difference to the outcome of the war.
It’s hilarious how simple design choices can lead to such similar outcomes. You’ve built an A-37 Dragonfly. They look so incredibly similar. Though due to its more advanced engines, and even with a side by side two seat cockpit and enormous canopy, the Dragonfly has a slight performance edge in speed and clean rate of climb. But your design is dramatically better armed for AtA combat as you’ve got quad 20mm vs the A-37’s single 7.62mm minigun.
The amazing amount of time you put in to creating your plane was well worth it. It looks really good. And you are dead on that the camo and panels with rivets seal the deal.
No, not the "Tweet" , the "Clunk" also known as the AVRO CF-100 Canuck.
as an aircraft mechanic: I hate you for making me think about working on this
Made me go back and kinda polish up my JuS-17. These history bits you do are great.
I really love the look, especially the fuselage and canopy shape
I'd love to see a series like this about tank development as well as planes
having a lawnmover pull starter thingy on jets was the most first generstion jet thing ever
btw ultrakill reference hows pinos prime going
DAY IN THE LIFE OF A TRUE METEOR GEEZER
Also to everyone else, do not get this mixed up:
The Me262 was the first COMBAT OPERATIONAL jet fighter. NOT the first jet aircraft!
in fact like messier showed before, the He280 came before the Me262,
but the title of first true jet aircraft is somewhat disputed.
what isn't disputed however was the ME262 being the first jet aircraft to see combat.
I discovered your channel about the same time when I discovered Flyout. And they are GREAT ! It's really cool and satisfying to see someone good at what they're building.
I was wondering though, could you make a linked video in the description that leads to the full building process, that could be really useful to learn
You make the best fly out videos keep it up!!
the swept wings on the me 262 were not even for aerodynamic purposes but because they had to manufacture it that way, if i remember correctly it had smthg to do with the engines
the 004 engines were heavier than the original design spec so they had to be shifted back to keep the centre of gravity the same, so instead of a full redesign they just swept the wings
You should look into the Lockheed L-133, an early take on a transonic/supersonic jet fighter designed before 1942
No way was that design expected to be supersonic, even before it was rejected.
@@gort8203 actually, from an aerodynamic standpoint the design was very much capable of transonic/supersonic flight. The only thing that would have prevented it from actually going above Mach 1 in level flight would be the engines. It’s thin blended-wing-fuselage reduced transonic drag as the narrow-front wide-back design significantly reduced the affects of compressibility, something that it’s design predecessor, the P-38, suffered from significantly.
There is zero chance of that design ever getting remotely close to supersonic with the engines of the time. And the airframe itself wouldn't survive it regardless.
@@thecodeofreality You don't know what you're talking about and are just making stuff up. That design was not intended for supersonic flight, period.
Ending cinematic got you a sub. You don't put that much heart into something without meaning it, thats my boy.
Yooooo that plane turned out gorgeous! Phenomenal work mate
wait this is like literally a fully in depth sim where you build the aircraft?!?! even the damage models?! this is crazy and youre definitely right about how cad modeling IN games is a double edged sword, i play JNO, SP, KSP, SE, Beamng, brickrigs (not often), gearblocks, scrap mechanic, dream car builder and like 1 or 2 more that are almost kinda like that but this game blows every single one ive listed out of the water in terms of building, only trouble with these games is that now you have to spend most your time doing something akin to what the developers do when adding planes to a game like war thunder instead of actually flying your the aircraft and using it for intended purposes, still though flyout seems badass might check it out
Babe wake up! New Messier 82 vid droped
I love what you did with the design on this thing, it’s oddly satisfying to look at, but at the same time I wouldn’t want to see that thing coming at me in the skies
I've always loved the look of dual engines mounted in the wing roots like the F2H!
Happiness comes when your work and words are of benefit to yourself and others.
The look at those early jets with the integrated wing jets…
Beautiful
This channel restore my attention span with intresting topic and funny humor
the Canberra, p-59, and 262 had a baby
Let's not forget the T-37 Tweet and from what others have said, the CF-100 Canuck. This airplane is a masterclass of different designs!
I can comfortably say that is one hell of an aircraft. Simply Beautiful
You should make a plane that uses wild geese as fuel
A lot of early jet got their basic design modernised with swept wings and more powerful engines. Such as the Fury -> F86 and the attacker -> swift also the sea hawk eventually evolving into the hunter and also the F9 panther -> F9 Cougar.
The first US Military jet was the P-59 Airacomet though. The Junkers Jumo 004 turbojet was used in the Avia S.92, but the Messerschmitt Me 262 in German service during WWII was a BMW 003 or BMW 004 which had a slightly higher performance than the Junkers Jumo 004
How did I not find this channel sooner? Top content
You can adopt the attitude there is nothing you can do, or you can see the challenge as your call to action.
nice, really nice and smooth canopy activation, sorta makes me wish we had linear actuators in the game.
I reckon they should have a second set of wings
Yeah, call them bi-somethings, like bi-wing, or maybe bi-plane.
Fun fact: Yes, this abomination does exist. Yes, it was mass produced. And yes, the concept of it probably was made up while someone was drunk.
Look up the "PZL M-15" xD
Oh god, I just looked that up
That is disgusting and I love it. Apparently it was designed in Poland, but it looks more like something you’d find thrown together from scrap metal in Louisiana or Alabama.
I always followed the Dogfights scale of fighter craft generations, which had piston engines at Gen 1 and Gen 2 was all the subsonic jet aircraft.
You see a variety of WWII aircraft with sweeps on the leading edge, trailing edge, or both to change the location of the center of lift and/or pressure.
The big shift from Gen-3 to Gen-4 is Low Wing-loading Blended fuselage design (from NASA's lifting body experiments) + Data-link. Euro-Fighter Typhoon gets a pass on this though and goes 4+ for also having Supercruise. Dassault Raphale is more in line with Gen 4 as it's a blended wing fuselage delta design.
Although there may be tragedy in your life, there's always a possibility to triumph. It doesn't matter who you are, where you come from. The ability to triumph begins with you. Always.
Interesting design. Getting a real Avro CF-100 vibe from the design.
I'd say the FJ-1 would be Gen 1. Granted it had a very likited production entered production. It went through a serious amount of RND to become the F-86 tho
I built a Lego V1 rocket while listening to this.
Pretty decent first effort. I would've done the Gen 1 with different goals in mind. For ex., one engine in the fuselage w/intakes at the wing roots; landing gear set in the wings, opening outward for a wider stance. Ideally it would simpler to maintain, use less fuel than a twin, and be easier to takeoff & land. Kinda like an F9F Panther, a late '40s design featured in "The Bridges at Toko-Ri".
Love this era of planes
Same
I miss one of his old videos where after a missile that he made in the video came back after missing it target the first time and doing almost a 360 lock on it and still hit it. I miss that video. I wish she kept that one.
4:39 they also liked to burst into flames out of nowhere for no reason.
They just liked to transform the plane into a shooting star.
262 was the first mas produced, and fastest of it's gen, but I digress, other points were spot on
The fish listened intently to what the frogs had to say.
Can’t wait to see the variable wing geometry craziness of the 70s
nice video!
would be cool if you could try mixed piston-jet designs that were in service around the same time like the FR Fireball or AJ Savage
God damn! I wish your Plane was real because then it would be in WarThunder and i could fly it there. What you did there is a really beautiful design. I love it :)
3:20 yeah the yak 15 is what that jet is called if you wanted to know it’s a little interesting to say the least….
Always a good day when Messier-82 releases a video. Will you be doing carrier aircraft in this series?
Requesting a supersonic stealth attack helicopter that uses canard rotor wing technology for VTOL/low speed flight but turns into an oblique wing for forward and supersonic flight.
Silhouette reminds me of the CF-100, with the jet engines mounted right at the wing roots.
I really like the shape of the fuselage and cockpit on this one! I think if you decide to make the UFB's foray into "2nd gen" jet fighters, you should be fine with reusing the fuselage from this one!
I have nothing intellectual to say about gen 1 Fighters.
But the Meteor in WT slaps.
It's got enough power to climb in to a nice altitude, and excellent manoeuvreability to out turn most planes on the first pass. And it has the optimal armament.
Good actions give strength to ourselves and inspire good actions in others.
I think youtube suggested a fun game... and for the first time the algorithm worked properly...
This is the result when the P-59 mates with a CF-100.
Idk why I love jet prototypes from ww2 and post war 50's
Gen 1 = it has a jet engine. That is it.
Love this series! Cant wait for the next video of the gen 2
The UFB sounds like Belka with extra steps
Gives me strong Hawker Sea Hawk vibes crossed with a CF-100.
my favourite ww2 jet fact is that the English and Germans separately designed two different jet propulsion systems and both debuted them on a fighter jet that was put into service at very similar times
nice video
how is nobody talking about the beauty of canopy that got built onto this aircraft
nice, opened RUclips at the right time
Id like to see a series based of each of the 5 generations of fighters
There were more drastic versions of the me262 and the me262 was intended to have the engines inside the main airframe but they were too big and so needed to be on the wings. They were the hg variants. The first one wasn’t really a drastic version, it simply had the airframe smoothed out as to remove parasitic drag due to how rough the standard me262 was. The hg 2 would have 35 degree swept wings, an experimental v-tail, and would’ve had improved engines though it crashed if I remember correctly due to engine failure. The hg 3 had fewer changes from the hg2 where it simply had again improved engines, an improved airframe based around the hg2, the engines wound now be inside the airframe (just as originally intended for the og me262 but the engines came out too big for it so they were now on the wings) and the wings would now be swept at 45 degrees. The hg 3 was estimated to be able to reach around I believe 1100km/h or else it was 1000km/h but the final variant was never made due to the war ending due to them losing. I do agree that the standard me262 definitely was quite standard compared to the planes at the time though, not being majorly different from the other props except for the engines.