Ich erinnere mich noch als kleiner Junge in den 30er Jahren als eine DO X auf dem Zürichsee landete. Es war eine eindrückliche Schau, diese 6 Motoren und natürlich auch der dazugehörende Sound.(Lärm) Das Flugzeug hatte aber einen technischen defekt und konnte nicht mehr starten. So wurde das Flugzeug im Loch, so hiess ein Platz beim Zürichhorn, an Land gebracht wo die Motoren und alle sonst wichtigen Instrumente ausgebaut und wurden dann nach Friderichshafen transportiert. Noch viele Jahre lag die für uns riesige eindrückliche Stahlkonstruktion am Ufer und wartete da auf die Verschrottung eugen
@@user-ky6qk5co3u Angenommen er war als kleiner Junge zwischen 4 und 10 Jahren alt. Die Do X ist am 2. November 1932 nach einem monatelangen Rundflug auf dem Zürichsee gelandet, also vor etwa 92 Jahren. Dann müsste der gute Mann heute zwischen 96 und 102 sein.
Mein Nachbar ... Kapitän Friedrich Christiansen (Wyk auf Föhr) flog die DO-X (1931 !!! 180 Passagiere/Besatzung, mit Schlafkabinen) nach New York und wurde vom Kaiser (u.a.) mit dem "Pure le Merit" ausgezeichnet. Das einzige noch erhaltene Teil - ein Propeller - steht dort in einem Museum. de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Christiansen
If you wanted to carry 170 passengers in smaller aircraft, you'd need to invent single-engine aircraft carrying 15 passengers each to do it with the same number of engines, or twin-engine planes carrying 30, or 4-engine airliners carrying 60, all of which were way state of the art. Even the typical passenger load was pretty decent; 100 or 60 for long distance. Biggest problem was that the engine technology of 1929 wasn't advanced enough. Nothing wrong with a cruising speed of 100mph. Perfectly respectable. Pretty sure Lindbergh did about that the entire way across the Atlantic. To people in 1929, to travel at a rate of 100 miles per hour all the way across the ocean was amazing. The very best steam locomotives might reach 100mph on very good, level track, but it was something to be excited over. It's easy for people today to look back and scoff that it's "only" 100mph, but compared to walking or a horse-drawn-wagon, it's a damn respectable rate. Hell, 30mph is fast enough; you can cover a lot of ground at 30mph, if you aren't impatient. People now are just spoiled because it seems to them like a perfectly natural thing to be able to jump in a car and hit the interstate and cruise at 85mph 3 states over, or hop on a jet and fly at 600mph to NYC (and then complain because "the flight was so long" when the same trip would have taken weeks of hard traveling once!). People have no sense of just how amazing it is that they are able to do this, they just want better. 100mph was and still is a very respectable speed to travel at. Try sailing around the world at an average speed of 6mph in a sailing ship, when making 100 miles in 24 hours was considered very good sailing time!
Alcock and Brown flew non-stop over the Atlantic in 1919 with a Vickers Vimy. Lindbergh's flight was the first solo crossing, which was quite a feat because that meant he had no co-pilot and had to stay awake all this time. That was 33,5 hours non-stop...
What an utterly civilised way of flying. Just look at the dining areas. Chairs arranged around tables and silverware. And look at the leg room you had. Not like now where we are crammed in with knees under our chins. Britain had a similar service in the thirties with the big Handley Page Hannibals on the India / Africa run. Technology is supposed to bring about social advancement,but looking at these beautiful flying boats l feel we have lost something very special in return for speed. How sad.
@jethou1 Many thanks for your reply. Reading up on the DoX it would appear that it was considered a failure..but then again,so was Concorde! OK, todays aircraft are technological wonders,but to me they are soulless,whereas planes like the DoX were somehow noble creations. How sad that not one survives today. Back in the fifties l used to watch the Sunderlands operating off the Solent. l doubt any exist today. Perhaps l'm just an old man mourning an era long gone. But that's just me l'm afraid.
No matter how many billions you have, you have to get the FAA, etc, to allow it. Unless you go find some small, obliging nation somewhere and build it there and never fly anywhere else. If you were to make something that LOOKED a lot like a Do X but had modern structure, controls, instruments and engines, it might go a long way to making the FAA happy. But you'd still have to go through the ridiculously long and expensive certification and testing and approval process if you want to fly with passengers....maybe at all, with an aircraft that big. Billions of dollars would certainly help a lot, I'm sure.
look at center camera man at 4:38 he seems to be flying his own bird. can anyone direct me to a video of a dornier libell the three seater from the twenties?
I saw that. I think he's just making some kind of signal to someone, maybe a "#1" sign. I think the "middle finger" is a pretty modern gesture, at least in its present meaning. Possibly the same gesture with a different meaning. It certainly LOOKS like someone flipping the bird, but it just doesn't seem likely under the circumstances.
@AryanKnight At the same time they say "Messungen der Luftströme" - which translates into "probing/measuring the air currents". Which is probably what he was doing.
Daten der Boing 737-500 Länge: 31m Höhe: 11m Spannweite: 29m Daten der Boing MAX 10: Länge: 44m Höhe: 12m Spannweite: 36m …selbst im Vergleich der 90 Jahre später benutzten 737 ist die Do-X mindestens von der Ausmaßen ähnlich.
@@emanuel_6928 Alle Bewertungen unterliegen dem Vergleich, dabei ist der Zugriff auf Analogien in der Zukunft nur Propheten vorbehalten. Ein Kilobyte ist heute eine winzige Speichereinheit, ein Terabyte ist in Zukunft, soweit ich es voraussagen kann, klein.
And imagine.... if ALL the engines (Do-X has TWELVE engines) die out overseas.... you just can "land".... remember THAT when YOU are in an airplane from today (TWO engines) overseas and the engines die out.....
@crankbv1 I agree, what a way to travel, I like many others I'm sure, would trade speed for comfort. The real reason we don't fly in comfort like this any more, is cost. These aircraft were built to pander to the rich. I dread to think how much a transatlantic flight in them cost in terms of the average wage at the time!
Dommage que la traduction automatique ne fonctionne😭:je suis tombée amoureuse de Do X de MSFS2020, j'aurais aimé apprendre davantage sur cet hydroavion.
A google reveals that this thing went thru 400 gallons of fuel per 60 minutes of flight and cruised at just barely 100 miles per hour. Sort of like trying to put wings and engines on Madison Square Garden!
400 gallons of fuel per minute isn't that bad for a plane that size. You know how much fuel a jet burns? An F-15 engine burns 2.2 gallons per SECOND on full afterburner. And that's a modern "efficient" engine. That's still like .6gps even on military thrust. Which is still 2160 gal/hr per engine. A typical specific fuel consumption for a military jet might be .6lb/lbf/hr: it burns .6lbs fuel per pound of thrust per hour. 6.6lbs fuel/gallon, so for a 20,000lb thrust engine, it's burning 12,000lbs/1,818gal per hour, per engine (times two for a twin engine). At full afterburner, SPC raises to 2.5lb/lbf/hr, so it's 50,000lbs burned for hour, or 7,575.7 gallons/engine. Civilian engines are more efficient, but they easily go between 60,000-100,000lbf, so the actual fuel consumption is like a firehose. That's why they carry literally many tons of fuel with each flight. A typical diesel locomotive has a fuel tank between 4,000-6,000 gallons, and gets like .1mpg...but there is the crux. It is carrying a lot of weight. Huge ships burn vast bunkers of fuel...but they carry a lot of weight. So the total fuel flow of the Do X is irrelevant. The question is how much fuel does it burn per pound of payload? I think you'll find if you compare 400gal/hr for the weight of the payload/passengers with a much smaller plane, burning less fuel but carrying a tiny payload, you will find them roughly comparable. Speed traveled has little to do with ultimate efficiency, other than that a jet burning a seemingly insane amount of fuel can get relatively decent economy, since it gets where it's going so quickly (the SR-71 is an extreme example). The other main efficiency with jets it their ability to fly a high altitude where the the air is thinner and there is less drag. Down low, where the Do X flies, it is actually at an advantage to be flying slower. Drag increases by the square, so as you increase speed, drag doubles, then doubles again, and then doubles again. So it requires 4 times more power to achieve 200mph (and 4x the fuel consumption, given equivalent technology levels), but you're only traveling twice as fast, so its still twice the fuel burned per pound of payload. 100mph was very respectable for the day; it was a hell of a lot faster than sailing in a ship, which was their big benchmark. To travel _100 miles in the hour_ was an amazing thing back when when people had grandparents who had been amazed at the idea of traveling _fifteen miles every hour_(!) in a train. A very fast carriage made like 7 miles in an hour, at the cost of a rough, arduous ride and constant changing of horses. To the people of the time, the Do X was a flying ship. It was big, carried a large number of passengers in luxury. It had 10 engines! Of course it burned a lot a fuel. But did it burn more than ten single engine planes carrying the same payload? I doubt it. Was it slower? Not slower than a typical passenger plane. Were there faster aircraft then? Sure, but they were meant for speed and maneuverability, not efficient lugging of passengers and cargo smoothly over long distances. Anyway, tldr, it's a big plane, of course it used a lot of fuel. It's payload/gallon/mile that is important.
Not so much.... Turbine-Engines are much more inefficient.... and that's over EIGHTY YEARS ago..... What will humans in EIGHTY YEARS think about OUR "technology"?
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Ich erinnere mich noch als kleiner Junge in den 30er Jahren als eine DO X auf dem Zürichsee landete. Es war eine eindrückliche Schau, diese 6 Motoren und natürlich auch der dazugehörende Sound.(Lärm) Das Flugzeug hatte aber einen technischen defekt und konnte nicht mehr starten. So wurde das Flugzeug im Loch, so hiess ein Platz beim Zürichhorn, an Land gebracht wo die Motoren und alle sonst wichtigen Instrumente ausgebaut und wurden dann nach Friderichshafen transportiert. Noch viele Jahre lag die für uns riesige eindrückliche Stahlkonstruktion am Ufer und wartete da auf die Verschrottung eugen
Die Do X hatte sogar 12 Motoren, je Motorgondel mit einem Druck- bzw. Zugpropeller.
Wie alt bist du jetzt?
@@user-ky6qk5co3u 168
@@user-ky6qk5co3u Angenommen er war als kleiner Junge zwischen 4 und 10 Jahren alt. Die Do X ist am 2. November 1932 nach einem monatelangen Rundflug auf dem Zürichsee gelandet, also vor etwa 92 Jahren. Dann müsste der gute Mann heute zwischen 96 und 102 sein.
Such a a marvelous machine. Of those days. Germany always surprises the world. Respect.
Ein absolutes Meisterstück.
Great film that preserves a very important part of maritime aviation history!
Wunderbar Ingenerie in das Zeit, Sehr Gut Dokumantàr !Danke !!
Damit wäre ich gerne mal geflogen was eine Maschine klasse Video
cool! war am samstag im dornie museum. habe da modelle von dem riesen teil gesehen! unglaublich das ding... das museum ist aber auch toll
Vielleicht ist das etwas altmodisch, aber ich finde die Do X ist ein absolut edles und bemerkenswertes Flugzeug.
sehr genialer Film !
This was a beautiful way to travel, sad this craft was destroyed during the war.
Mein Nachbar ... Kapitän Friedrich Christiansen (Wyk auf Föhr) flog die DO-X (1931 !!! 180 Passagiere/Besatzung, mit Schlafkabinen) nach New York und wurde vom Kaiser (u.a.) mit dem "Pure le Merit" ausgezeichnet.
Das einzige noch erhaltene Teil - ein Propeller - steht dort in einem Museum.
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Christiansen
Danke !
If you wanted to carry 170 passengers in smaller aircraft, you'd need to invent single-engine aircraft carrying 15 passengers each to do it with the same number of engines, or twin-engine planes carrying 30, or 4-engine airliners carrying 60, all of which were way state of the art. Even the typical passenger load was pretty decent; 100 or 60 for long distance. Biggest problem was that the engine technology of 1929 wasn't advanced enough. Nothing wrong with a cruising speed of 100mph. Perfectly respectable. Pretty sure Lindbergh did about that the entire way across the Atlantic. To people in 1929, to travel at a rate of 100 miles per hour all the way across the ocean was amazing. The very best steam locomotives might reach 100mph on very good, level track, but it was something to be excited over. It's easy for people today to look back and scoff that it's "only" 100mph, but compared to walking or a horse-drawn-wagon, it's a damn respectable rate. Hell, 30mph is fast enough; you can cover a lot of ground at 30mph, if you aren't impatient. People now are just spoiled because it seems to them like a perfectly natural thing to be able to jump in a car and hit the interstate and cruise at 85mph 3 states over, or hop on a jet and fly at 600mph to NYC (and then complain because "the flight was so long" when the same trip would have taken weeks of hard traveling once!). People have no sense of just how amazing it is that they are able to do this, they just want better. 100mph was and still is a very respectable speed to travel at. Try sailing around the world at an average speed of 6mph in a sailing ship, when making 100 miles in 24 hours was considered very good sailing time!
Alcock and Brown flew non-stop over the Atlantic in 1919 with a Vickers Vimy.
Lindbergh's flight was the first solo crossing, which was quite a feat because that meant he had no co-pilot and had to stay awake all this time. That was 33,5 hours non-stop...
Dornier war schon ein großer Meister seines Faches…🧐👍👍👍👍
Hallo ein sehr schönes und Ästetisches flugzeug
Die Weimarer Republik und allgemein die 20er waren schon eine verdammt coole Zeit...
What an utterly civilised way of flying. Just look at the dining areas. Chairs arranged around tables and silverware. And look at the leg room you had. Not like now where we are crammed in with knees under our chins. Britain had a similar service in the thirties with the big Handley Page Hannibals on the India / Africa run. Technology is supposed to bring about social advancement,but looking at these beautiful flying boats l feel we have lost something very special in return for speed. How sad.
ich wünschte ich könnte dieses flugzeug fliegen.
4:37 ja nochmal richtig schön den Mittelfinger zeigen...
der perfekte mittelfinger... wenn du ihn von dem typen gezeigt bekommst tuts gleich 3 mal so weh
@@Judas1911WR1 der ist schon im jenseits
😂😂😂😂
Fuer Urlaub wunderbar. Super pour les vacances. Holydays on water...
4:38 cameraman middle-finger? :)
Nein, der Kameramann misst mit dem Zeigefinger die Entfernung zum Objekt zur Kameralinse.Pi mal Daumen.
Mein Opa. Paul F. Hein war Pilot der D-X
A shame that all plains were detroyed.
Seltsam, ich hab sie 1940, von der S Bahn aus, im Luftfahrt Museum Berlin, gesehen, dort wurde sie auch durch Bomben zerstört.
Meine Großeltern haben die Do-X fliegen gesehen.
Zeigt der Typ bei 4:38 den Mittelfinger?! Schade, das nicht zumindest ein Exemplar dieser tollen Flugmaschine noch existiert...
toller Bericht - aber ist das Teil bei seiner weltreise nicht irgendwo fast abgefackelt??
@jethou1 Many thanks for your reply. Reading up on the DoX it would appear that it was considered a failure..but then again,so was Concorde! OK, todays aircraft are technological wonders,but to me they are soulless,whereas planes like the DoX were somehow noble creations. How sad that not one survives today. Back in the fifties l used to watch the Sunderlands operating off the Solent. l doubt any exist today. Perhaps l'm just an old man mourning an era long gone. But that's just me l'm afraid.
😢😢 Schade das dieses Unglaublich Flugboot bei den Luftangriffen zerstört wurde
When I get billionarie, I will order to build a new Dornier Do X to flight again. Who dobt that billions of dollars are able to do this??
No matter how many billions you have, you have to get the FAA, etc, to allow it. Unless you go find some small, obliging nation somewhere and build it there and never fly anywhere else. If you were to make something that LOOKED a lot like a Do X but had modern structure, controls, instruments and engines, it might go a long way to making the FAA happy. But you'd still have to go through the ridiculously long and expensive certification and testing and approval process if you want to fly with passengers....maybe at all, with an aircraft that big. Billions of dollars would certainly help a lot, I'm sure.
Wo ein Wille ist, da findet sich ein Weg. - Money is no obstacle. :-)
look at center camera man at 4:38 he seems to be flying his own bird. can anyone direct me to a video of a dornier libell the three seater from the twenties?
I saw that. I think he's just making some kind of signal to someone, maybe a "#1" sign. I think the "middle finger" is a pretty modern gesture, at least in its present meaning. Possibly the same gesture with a different meaning. It certainly LOOKS like someone flipping the bird, but it just doesn't seem likely under the circumstances.
@@kelharper7971 No to show the middle finger is an old gesture. Even the old romans and greeks have known this gesture and not in a nice meaning.
@AryanKnight At the same time they say "Messungen der Luftströme" - which translates into "probing/measuring the air currents". Which is probably what he was doing.
Wie damals 40m gigantisch waren und heute ist eine 737 so groß.
Daten der Boing 737-500
Länge: 31m
Höhe: 11m
Spannweite: 29m
Daten der Boing MAX 10:
Länge: 44m
Höhe: 12m
Spannweite: 36m
…selbst im Vergleich der 90 Jahre später benutzten 737 ist die Do-X mindestens von der Ausmaßen ähnlich.
@@mwewering Und was willst du mir jetzt damit sagen?
@@emanuel_6928 Alle Bewertungen unterliegen dem Vergleich, dabei ist der Zugriff auf Analogien in der Zukunft nur Propheten vorbehalten.
Ein Kilobyte ist heute eine winzige Speichereinheit, ein Terabyte ist in Zukunft, soweit ich es voraussagen kann, klein.
What a *"crate"* ... The Germans are brilliant to have gotten that thing to fly
"that thing" made a SMOOTH WORLD-TOUR with over 100 passengers..... (Europe, USA, Africa, South-America....)
And imagine.... if ALL the engines (Do-X has TWELVE engines) die out overseas.... you just can "land".... remember THAT when YOU are in an airplane from today (TWO engines) overseas and the engines die out.....
Das war damals eine Kiste!
12 radial aircooled engines- just imagine the sound!!!
@crankbv1 I agree, what a way to travel, I like many others I'm sure, would trade speed for comfort.
The real reason we don't fly in comfort like this any more, is cost. These aircraft were built to pander to the rich. I dread to think how much a transatlantic flight in them cost in terms of the average wage at the time!
2:36 Looks like one of the Jefferies tubes on a Star Trek Space Ship! It may well be, this was the inspiration.
Dommage que la traduction automatique ne fonctionne😭:je suis tombée amoureuse de Do X de MSFS2020, j'aurais aimé apprendre davantage sur cet hydroavion.
@AryanKnight The video says he is measuring the airstream.
Put a 4 room house on a boat and a wing and 12 engines and it flys. YEA
Telefon????????? Wow!
What´s the name of bacground song at 4:00 ?!
wo finde ich diesen Film. ist es eine DVD?
👍👍
A google reveals that this thing went thru 400 gallons of fuel per 60 minutes of flight and cruised at just barely 100 miles per hour. Sort of like trying to put wings and engines on Madison Square Garden!
400 gallons of fuel per minute isn't that bad for a plane that size. You know how much fuel a jet burns? An F-15 engine burns 2.2 gallons per SECOND on full afterburner. And that's a modern "efficient" engine. That's still like .6gps even on military thrust. Which is still 2160 gal/hr per engine.
A typical specific fuel consumption for a military jet might be .6lb/lbf/hr: it burns .6lbs fuel per pound of thrust per hour. 6.6lbs fuel/gallon, so for a 20,000lb thrust engine, it's burning 12,000lbs/1,818gal per hour, per engine (times two for a twin engine). At full afterburner, SPC raises to 2.5lb/lbf/hr, so it's 50,000lbs burned for hour, or 7,575.7 gallons/engine. Civilian engines are more efficient, but they easily go between 60,000-100,000lbf, so the actual fuel consumption is like a firehose. That's why they carry literally many tons of fuel with each flight. A typical diesel locomotive has a fuel tank between 4,000-6,000 gallons, and gets like .1mpg...but there is the crux. It is carrying a lot of weight. Huge ships burn vast bunkers of fuel...but they carry a lot of weight. So the total fuel flow of the Do X is irrelevant. The question is how much fuel does it burn per pound of payload? I think you'll find if you compare 400gal/hr for the weight of the payload/passengers with a much smaller plane, burning less fuel but carrying a tiny payload, you will find them roughly comparable. Speed traveled has little to do with ultimate efficiency, other than that a jet burning a seemingly insane amount of fuel can get relatively decent economy, since it gets where it's going so quickly (the SR-71 is an extreme example). The other main efficiency with jets it their ability to fly a high altitude where the the air is thinner and there is less drag. Down low, where the Do X flies, it is actually at an advantage to be flying slower. Drag increases by the square, so as you increase speed, drag doubles, then doubles again, and then doubles again. So it requires 4 times more power to achieve 200mph (and 4x the fuel consumption, given equivalent technology levels), but you're only traveling twice as fast, so its still twice the fuel burned per pound of payload. 100mph was very respectable for the day; it was a hell of a lot faster than sailing in a ship, which was their big benchmark. To travel _100 miles in the hour_ was an amazing thing back when when people had grandparents who had been amazed at the idea of traveling _fifteen miles every hour_(!) in a train. A very fast carriage made like 7 miles in an hour, at the cost of a rough, arduous ride and constant changing of horses. To the people of the time, the Do X was a flying ship. It was big, carried a large number of passengers in luxury. It had 10 engines! Of course it burned a lot a fuel. But did it burn more than ten single engine planes carrying the same payload? I doubt it. Was it slower? Not slower than a typical passenger plane. Were there faster aircraft then? Sure, but they were meant for speed and maneuverability, not efficient lugging of passengers and cargo smoothly over long distances.
Anyway, tldr, it's a big plane, of course it used a lot of fuel. It's payload/gallon/mile that is important.
Das ingenieure!!!!
tja heute sind wir Ölsardinen beim Fliegen. würde es gut finden wenn alle Kommentare gebracht werden von wegen Zensur und so...
Here is a great high resolution colorized film about the Dornier DO-X:
ruclips.net/video/WOXdY-L1Ems/видео.html
Gehört zu UNGLAUBLICH
Das war nicht das einzige flugzeugt, das auf dem hutson river landete
Aber die einzige Do X auf dem Hudson. ;)
No smashing into the ground like all the modern jobs flying these days. Have boat? Just add wings - so simple.
Der Kommentar: ... rollt über den Bodensee ... 😂
Rollversuche auf dem Wasser... hahaha
Ja, ein Flugschiff rollt, wenn es sich voranbewegt, aber nicht fliegt. Das sagt man so.
*Background
Der A380 von vor dem Krieg^^
Must have lost all fuel pretty quick hu?
Not so much.... Turbine-Engines are much more inefficient.... and that's over EIGHTY YEARS ago..... What will humans in EIGHTY YEARS think about OUR "technology"?
....
4:36!!! Mittelfinger!!
Woody
немецкий "киевнаучфильм", к сожалению немецкий не знаю