The bomber America should have built…
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 03. 2024
- Get 10% off your first site and domain - Every click goes to help me buy a XB-51
www.squarespace.com/found
Merch Store!
www.foundandexplained.shop
Check out the thumbnail art here: www.artstation.com/artwork/Ev...
NEW CHANNEL:
• Launched from the bigg...
Discord: / discord
My News Channel: / @aviationstationyt
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @foundandexplained
Patreon:
/ foundandexplained
Discover the remarkable XB-51 bomber, an avant-garde aircraft that pushed the boundaries of aeronautical engineering during the Cold War. Developed by the United States in the early 1950s, the XB-51 was a testament to innovation and advanced design concepts.
This video delves into the XB-51's unique features, including its swept-wing configuration, unconventional three-engine layout, and sleek, futuristic appearance. With its forward-swept wings and slim fuselage, the XB-51 boasted exceptional speed and agility, making it a formidable presence in the skies.
Join us as we explore the history of the XB-51, from its inception to its role in shaping strategic bomber development. Learn about its cutting-edge avionics, groundbreaking flight characteristics, and the challenges faced by its designers and test pilots.
Despite its short-lived operational career, the XB-51 left an indelible mark on aviation history, influencing subsequent generations of bomber aircraft. Don't miss this opportunity to uncover the secrets of one of the most intriguing bombers of the Cold War era. Subscribe now for more captivating insights into aviation's past, present, and future!
Get 10% off your first site and domain - Every click goes to help me buy a XB-51
www.squarespace.com/found
Merch Store!
www.foundandexplained.shop
Check out the thumbnail art here: www.artstation.com/artwork/EvVo34
NEW CHANNEL:
czcams.com/video/qXxl5Ef5lFg/video.html
Discord: discord.gg/4x7zTbr53W
My News Channel: czcams.com/channels/D3cl0MmX6fGZzeAHt4JWJA.html
Join this channel to get access to perks:
czcams.com/channels/pM4zrZ9c_apiEj6CApj2yw.htmljoin
Patreon:
www.patreon.com/foundandexplained
I love the aesthetics of late 40s and 1950s aerospace tech.
But….does it love you….
50's was peak jet aircaft aesthetics for sure.
@@alvaropulido5245 makes no sense in that case.
ive never thought "wow that plane looks a little chubby" more than i have with this one
I thought you said it "had a little chubby"
Look up the Fairy Gannet, a British naval plane that straight up looks pregnant
Transvania Airtruk and Antonov An-14
Some American designs used anhedral. It was more commonly used by Russian designs. I wish I knew why anhedral was used.
Saab j29 has entered the chat😂😂
9:02 this shot is crazy for the 1950s.
I've always loved this design! The 'fifties were great for aircraft design, they just threw shit at the wall to see if it stuck.
Agreed. IMHO much of this had to do with so few engines that were reliable exist for aircraft. Concentration of reliable tech in engines seemed to me to be a large constraint in aircraft and rocket design. A reliable engine is produced and engineers just add or subtract depending on requirements. The Ford Tri Motor, BAC 146, Convair B36....myriad aircraft would just add/subtract the same engine designs as needed. Handful of engines for hundreds of designs. Could be wrong, but anecdotally seems to track.
This thing looks like the ME-262 had a drunken affair with an airliner
Funny you should say that, but it was based on a Messerschmitt design.
I was going to say. It looks German"ish"
This thing had the maneuverability of a supertanker - I remember reading how, in flight comparisons with the English Electric Canberra, it was described as having a turn rate that encompassed half the state....Additionally, it was lightly stressed to a 3.7 load factor so any king of aerobatics while carrying any reasonable military load would have been a no-no, especially in the dense air of low-level attack.
The F-111’s engines weren’t flammable. The videos of flames shooting out the tail were aircraft dumping fuel, which posed no risk to the aircraft or crew. The F-111 was retired by the USAF due to budget cuts, not due to engine problems.
War thunder: write that down, write that down
Impossible to balance it. It is superior to Canberra, higher top speed, bigger bomb load. Which means it should be at least 8.0BR, good luck surviving all the missiles coming at you
Martin pioneered the bicycle type landing gear in the modified Martin B-26 'Mississippi Stump Jumper.'
Love all the aesthetic of the "atomic age" and art deco. I think the aestihetic works well with the technology at the time
I had a very good friend of mine whom passed this past year. He worked for Martin from the late 40's to the early 70's. He was instrumental for the weapons systems and egress systems of the P-6M. While working on several missile systems for Martin he just happened upon sleek ship as he called it. The XB-51 was one of his favorite planes of the era. Un fortunately neither made it into full production with the Mariner only about 3 or 4 examples.
Thanks for posting this video because it reminds me of his friendship.
I remember reading about this aircraft in. Jane's encyclopedia when I was eight or nine. It was the late '80s and I thought it was an amazingly beautiful aircraft then. And I still do! My dad blew the a3d along with various other aircraft in the Navy so maybe that's why I like the lines. You did an amazingly. Great job animating this! And honestly man. I've been subscribed for at least a couple years. Probably longer and I don't understand how anybody can watch one of your videos and not subscribed. You put a lot of work in both in the animation and the research. I appreciate it
I think you're being exceptionally kind to the XB-51. Let's be honest, it was a cool looking but fundamentally flawed design and dangerous to fly. In flight trials, the Canberra didn't just edge it out in a few areas, it kicked its ass in every category except top speed - and it wasn't even that much slower.
EIGHT 20mm canons?! Jeeez-uuuus!!
Feeling better knowing William Holden and Lloyd Nolan are on the case.
Those photos the military always do, when they have a piece of equipment with all the ordinance it can use, I bet there's a manual which covers how to set these photos up, like with measurements and angles and such.
Hearing an Aussie say Fall instead of Autumn makes me sad
can yo umake whar if Aero Spacelines Super Guppy was a passenger plane?
It's like a 727 bomber!
There’s an alternate timeline where the forgotten or cancelled x-planes get built instead of what we have now changing history
Those low slung engines look like a nice FOD hazard.
Easy for maintenance crews to work on, though. That third engine… less so.
FOD. F-16.
You picture the Mercator in it's initial, short-wing version; Once Martin realized that it was better suited to long-range missions as a Recon/Attack, it aimed to give the US Navy a shore-based patrol bomber that was fast enough (under full power) to Scoot away from most enemy jets of the day. The XB-51, however was to be 'As Fast ' as most enemy jet fighters, And still have guns to Strafe or Dogfight with. Basically, an A-26 Invader, on Steroids!! My only Issue with it is the front-jet-engines being slung Low enough to have Taxi-/take-off/-landing issues with Debris Intake, and the lack of Afterburners for Combat-Thrust. Otherwise, it was a great Design and had Mission versatility inclusive in it's layout & build.
If "awkward teenager" was an airplane
always love to see these videos, keep up the good work!
The only thing I can think about that engine placement is that it would allow the plane to land and take off on short runways, but the whole thing is super weird.
The other problem I have is that T- tail. Not a good idea for combat. That tail has an engine and a T-tail. A lot of complex machinery that goes kaboom with a single bullet.
And most of the bombers doesn't have offensive machine guns, let alone auto cannons for a reason. But there will never be one single type of equipment/vehicle is capable to single-handedly win a war so the concept itself is absurd (at least for me).
@@LastGoatKnightIt's not a bomber, it's an attack plane, hence the cannons.
Amazing work Nick, your top-shelf production values are a blueprint all your own 👍🍻
@1:23 That piano had me thinking the video was playing "Lemonade" by Gucci Mane in the background for a second.
Amazing as always! Great work! I can't wait for the ornithopter video to come out. I have seen that one before, somewhere. Keep up the inspiring work!
Great video as always! Thanks for the great content. I would love to see you cover the slam jet.
Engines close too the cockpit like that is insanely loud and borderline deafening.
Why does the US flag in the video have 50 stars? AK & HI weren't states until 1959
All of this, accomplished without CAD... amazing 👏
Why exactly were the XB-51's engines so oddly placed?
Martin wanted a clean wing.
This plane had spoiler roll control. The plane had a variable incidence wing pivoting on the rear spar. The bicycle gear and engine placement left a thin, clean wing. For such an advanced aircraft, the prototypes did well, eg didn’t crash early in the test program as was so often the case. (For instance, Consider the dismal record of the F100 chase plane)
The Canberra was chosen for the reasons stated, but also because it was more mature and a war was on.
William Holden fortunately flew the XB102 before his death bombing the bridges at Toko Ri. The good news was taking Mickey Rooney with him.
I feel like the XB-51 could've been improved if they just stuck the engines at the back or on the wings. This would've also kept them further off the ground, reducing foreign debris injection during landing. Great video, love this bomber.
Bro this looks literally like some of my simple planes creations specially for the cockpit
A very imaginative design. Thanks for the informative video.
Those flight shots are amazing! It's so cool to see special jets in motion let alone flight dynamics outside of just the test program. Cool stuff! 😎🤟
Always loved your animated plane/vehicle stories
Cool thanks nick
a couple of minutes devoted to *how* this aircraft could have made a difference in Korea would have been nice.
Great video on one of my favorite SHOULD HAVE BEEN fast movers. I once wrote short story featuring the XB-51.
Always been a huge fan of this plane…recently bought a 1/72 scale Mikromir model kit of the XB-51.
Interesting aircraft and an interesting design too, I love the whaleback-looking curve of the profile. I would have loved to see more of those in the air.
The Korean War was more than any bomber could have sorted, in fact nothing could have sorted it..
Sorted? What are you talking about? Your comment doesn't make any sense.
Still a cool looking plane. What name would you give this bomber? Javelin maybe.
5:53 Back to the Martin XB-51.
nice keep the effort up fellow aussie
LOVE THIS!
It's gotta have some strange landing gear with those engines like that
I'm just wondering how it feels to eject from a T-tail aircraft because you a more likely to hit it or not
I also think the B-57 really lucked out because that plane was so adaptable.
love the configuration, but the wing area seemed too small
The XB-51 was a huge airplane for a low level bomber or ground-support attacker, and powered by three low-powered turbojet engines typical of that time it would be an obvious failure. Sanity prevailed. Its German missile lines were evident, via the Matador missile.
Uploading a vid at midnight is crazy
its 4:39pm here :)
@@FoundAndExplainedah that makes much more sense,are you in Australia or something?
USAF 1947 great subject I knew nothing of the XB 51 thank you
9:46)It was the US Air Force. Since 1947. NOT the US Army Air Corps.
2:12 4000 lb of bombs != 4000 lb of explosives, the casing reduces the amount of filler in bombs
Today the B-51 is only history. The following model bomber however became legendary which is still in use today by the USAF
Yes - the XB51, so good the air force didn't buy it.
It could not have 'won' the Korean War because it was not up to the specification. It looked 'innovative but really was just a set of pieces pushed together, which did not work in terms of performance improvements. The engines of that period were not unreliable at all. The Canberra used the RR Avons and these were manufactured under licence in the US and powered many types. The B57 used the alternative engine for the Canberra, the AS Sapphire, which also built under licence in the US and used in other US airframes. Martin did pioneer the Rotating Bomb Bay but as far as I am aware only one other aircraft used it, the Blackburn Buccaneer.
Next "MBB Lampyridae" please.
do a video on the dassault mercure
I grew up in the early 60s in a suburb of Minneapolis. Every now and then we'd hear sonic booms! I've researched this and it was B 58s practice targeting the city! It would have been cool to know that it was XB 51s!!
Finally!!! Heck yeah!
Hey, have you done any episode of the moonbat?
Of course Hollywood turned it into fighter
It probably could have been a great aircraft with additional testing and improvements.
I am very avid watcher of your content,
Can you create a video on the HAL Marut- India's first jet fighter
We did win the Korean War, then Truman lost it. MacArthur and his Inchon landing drove the Chinese out of Korea but Truman made him stop.
Check, the history books. The Inchon landings were before China entered the war .
Still hoping for a f20 tigershark
He has a discord
What a beautiful aircraft.
Awesome animation man. I bet it takes a lot of hours to do.
I think if they had reinforced the wing and given it some wing slats despite the obvious weight increase they could’ve gotten a much more nimble aircraft. Decreasing some bomb load for an increase of fuel would also be essential maybe like wingtip fuel pods? Aircraft like the F-89 were also experimenting with rockets that had HE-VT this aircraft while not a fighter with fighter armament could do some serious interception damage if not laden on a full load and ran only cannons, rato and rockets alternatively..
The AJ-1 Savage was a nice looking aircraft. Ruined by the fact they didn’t give it built in guns, Something remedied by the prototype AJ-2. I believe simply a different wing design would have increased performance substantially. Might’ve cost more who knows but swapping the wings and piston engines out for jet engines would be a good move and a easy way to repurpose the AJ-1 airframes once jets caught up.
les ingénieurs allemands ont laissés leur "patte" ici avec cette position basse en fuselage des réacteurs : cf. Ju.287, He. P1068-01-84, Me. P.1102 et pour les entrées dorsales : Horten Ho. X (ref : german jet genesis, David Masters / ed. JANE'S)
Excellent
Canberra bomber out performed this aircraft considerably.
This B-51 was a bomber that had limited strength of the airframe thus was limited in pulling Gs and maneuverability and the range compared to the Canberra was considerably less.
All B-51 produced prototypes crashing.
Production of the Canberra was delayed by years due to the amount of modifications requested.
I liked the movie with the XB-51 as "experimental fighterjet". It was a good story about a pilot who had to proof that e still is able and trust wort after being a prisoner of war by the enemy and released back to the USA.
Of all the designs proposed, this is the one I’m most miffed about being nixed…
Please make a video on SU30
In the 1950's more engines could mean the darn thing got off the ground.
It looks suspisciously like a certain German jet bomber.
The swept forward wing design. Designation escapes me at the moment. Fuselage based on He177
I have a question when do we get the long promise always told to be coming soon MiG 105 aka the space MiG when do we get it finnaly?
Those jet engines below the nose would just hoover up everything on the runway.
If Truman would have left MacArthur do his job, the war would have been won.
You mean like letting MacArthur use nukes and potentially escalate the conflict out of control?
You forgot the variable incidence wing system.
My favorite "could've been" of the Cold War.
In flight evaluations this plalne took sooo very long to turn around for a notger pass that the other planes it was compared to did three more attacks that i the same time.... so while being fast and sleek it was just bad for the job it was intended for and for that reason dropped.
No one in the airforce at that time ever thought that not putting this thing into service was anythin other than a good idea
I believe it was a very nice aircraft to fly.
Don't think I've seen a military jet with 3 engines before. It's always one, two or another even number.
I mean the KC-10 is kind of one
@@snegik Good point, but I'm talking attack craft.
Im happy its out now! Im actuality awake🎉
It’s a little ungainly looking but I like the concepts.
Nice, a midnight video
It is unfortunate that this aircraft could not get a chance to prove itself.
Id rather have this brick in war Thunder instead of the flying airbrake that is the Canberra
That Toyota Maru submarine scared me, but the french libellula was amazing
Fun video for the algorithm
8:40 "flying wing XB-49, which we've got a video" doesn't make any sense. The correct construction would be "flying wing XB-49, about which we've got a video".
At 9:54 you said Army Air Force existed during Korean War but the US Air Force was founded in 1947
not area ruled , would have had disappointing performance ,they were still learning .
I look at this Plane and it reminds me of dozens of german Studies about swept wings and several Jet-engine Layouts... don't get mad, i don't say it's German, only it looks like...