The Flying Pancake - Slowest Plane Ever Made!
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 11. 2021
- AdamandEve.com. Code: FOUND
50% Off 1 Item + Free Shipping in the US & Canada *some exclusions apply
New Channel: / @aviationstationyt
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @foundandexplained
Or Patreon: / foundandexplained
Social Media:
Instagram: foundandexplained
Facebook: foundandexplained
Discord: / discord
Tiktok: @foundandexplainedyt
High speed is not everything in aviation. Sometimes, the need is for something other than having an aircraft that travels very fast.
Speed might be sacrificed so that a plane can carry more cargo or payloads, or if an aircraft needs to fly longer distances more economically. Another reason why lower speed may be preferable is for when an aircraft needs to fly low and slow.
The latter reason for a low-speed military aircraft concept was the primary driving force behind the aircraft that’ll be covered in this video.
The Vought V-173 was designed not only to be able to fly at low speed, but at a snail’s pace!
And the thinking behind its design, by one of the most innovative aircraft designers of the time, was for a wing design with an extremely low-aspect ratio.
That design ethos created an aircraft that was as flat as it was roundish in shape.
The result was what many thought looked like a giant flapjack or pancake flying through the sky - hence its quirky nickname, the ‘Flying Pancake’.
So, what went into making the Vought V-173 or ‘Flying Pancake’?
The Vought V-173 was an aircraft built during World War II. As already mentioned, central to the proof-of-concept for this craft was an extremely low-aspect ratio wing design.
This created an aircraft that was essentially one giant, flat-shaped wing, hence its pancake-like appearance.
Its most eye-catching and unique feature was its circular wing, which was a relatively small 23.3 feet or 7.1 metres in diameter.
This small wing area was meant to provide structural strength and allow the craft to have a high level of manoeuvrability.
The wing comprised a symmetrical NACA airfoil section. The NACA airfoil was developed by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, or NACA, which was the predecessor to NASA.
The essential result was a mathematically-precise form of softly-cambered contouring. In theory, this type of airfoil allowed for constant, unaltered airflow over the surface.
A huge three-bladed wooden propeller was mounted at the tip of each airfoil.
These twin giant propellers would ensure that the entire aircraft was covered in constant slipstreams, thereby maximizing its aerodynamic performance in conjunction with the NACA airfoil. These prop-rotors were powered by a pair of air-cooled Continental A-80 radial engines capable of a very modest 80 horsepower.
The two four-cylinder piston engines would be housed within the fuselage on either side of the cockpit and just above the landing struts.
The wing, which was effectively also the fuselage, had a complex structure that consisted of two horizontal stabilizers and elevators, two rudders and two large elevators right at the midpoint of the fuselage.
Once again, this was also designed in order to achieve maximum aerodynamic lift and flow.
It also enabled a short take-off, as lift could be quickly generated due to the high angle of the wing area in relation to the prevailing airflow.
as such, a big plus of the V-173 was its ability to take off within 200 feet, which would be essential aboard most ships with limited runway space. Another plus was that it could also take off vertically into a 25-knot wind.
So not technically a VTOL but on some days it acted like one!
It was UATC that Zimmerman had approached with his concept after leaving NACA. Chance Vought had always had a conservative reputation regarding development, yet the division decided to invest in Zimmerman’s unique concept.
Vought had been awarded a contract by the United States Navy in May 1940 to build the V-173.
By early 1942, the United States was actively involved in World War II and so the Navy demanded that the plane be able to do very short-distance take-offs from tankers, capital ships and the decks of aircraft carriers in order to counter the threat posed by Japanese aircraft in the Pacific war arena.
The pressure was certainly on Zimmerman and his team, to deliver on this radical, new slow plane concept.
The aircraft never made it into production for the Second World War, as was its original intent. The aircraft that was also dubbed the ‘Zimmer Skimmer’ would not ever see mass production.
However, to its credit, the one full-sized Flying Pancake prototype would go on to have a total of 190 test flights with 131 hours of flight time between late 1942 and early 1947 without any major incidents or injuries to test pilots.
That’s a darn sight better statistics than most experimental prototype aircraft!
I knew about this plane back as a kid, through the Arcade vertical shooter, Strikers 1945 lol...
Same! It’s cool to finally learn something about the real plane lol
Good'ol strikers, good times.
Facts
How much to have an animation based on Strikers 1945 starring the flying pancake ;)
man, strikers 1945 II huh
One detail for the animation: the 2 propellers should turn in opposite directions and opposite to the direction of the wing tip vortex, if I am not mistaken.
Well they got half of them right
@@GoingtoHecq LOL good one
Not if you want to cause problems
Normaly the lower the wing aspect ratio the greater the vortex loss and less efficient wings. This plane can get away with such chunky wings because the propellers position counteract this loss like you mentioned.
All I have to say, is that this channel reminds me of Mustard (2017-now)
The Pancake actually had a decent top speed, comparable to a Hellcat or Wildcat. It's real advantage was its extremely low stall speed.
the XF5U never flew. The V-173 probably lost speed swinging those unnecessary props around.
@@JFrazer4303
Those props were necesary to fly . . .
@@jfangm Negative. That's a myth.
NACA tunnel tests with the V-73 showed that it did not gain anything nor particularly change anything with those props.
It got is super-STOL stall-proof performance solely from the planform, not the props.
See the Arup S=-2 of the 1930s which the V-173 was based on. Sleek and quick on little power, super-STOIL and stall-spin proof. Zimmerman saw it fly while he worked for NACA and after that chose it as a starting point for his VTOL tail-sitter experiments.
It was not necessary for the props to be there to fly. See the 1940s Boeing model 390 for alternative flapjack. Based on the Arup experience it would have flown well.
@@JFrazer4303
No, it isn't a myth, is a matter of scientific fact. The shape of the aircraft necessitated large propellers. I made no claims about the propellers relating to its performance. Try reading for comprehension next time.
It's simply not true that the shape necessitated the props situated as they were.
See the "Flying Heel-Lift" videos about the Arup plane which this was based from.
It did everything this did, on less power and faster if an Arup ever had 160 horsepower.
Several other similar examples have flown well, and not paying any attention to any alleged huge vortices at cruise.
It is a matter of scientific fact that the Arups did everything the Vought did, proving that it did not need the props as they were.
Honestly with more iterations, this would be one heck of a plane.
Looks like a perfect design to start for an all electric plane. 80HP is a piece of cake for electric motors, this could even work with current batteries.
Agreed. No transmission. The electric motors could be small enough to be pushed out to the edges. A small turbine Aux can power the electric motors. Contemporary batteries can do wonders to power a 30-minute flight. More ideas like contra-rotation of smaller rotors can be helpful.
@@lelandhetrick205 A 30 minute flight at these speeds doesn't seem very useful though
Hendershot generator
Look at the surface area of that thing. Cover the top in thin lightweight solar panels to supplement fuel cell/bettery usage.
smells like startup idea cooking
Thinking about this, an aircraft like this would probably make for an excellent COIN aircraft. Think about it. S/TOL means you don’t need a full size airfield to operate it. Ideal for operating in the middle of nowhere. With the lifting body and large wing surface area, payload is gonna be excellent. And you can pack a lot of fuel. Loitering time is gonna be wonderful.
Downside is that it would have a huge visual profile that would make it easy to spot and target using ground based heavy machine guns. It would also lose a lot of it's aerodynamic efficiency when you start hanging external bombs and missiles on it.
Another consideration is maintenance. If an A-10's wing get's damaged you can actually fit a new one. If any part of a plane like this was damaged it might be a complete write off. Plus having enough hatches in the fuselage for mechanics to do routine maintenance on the internal systems could be an issue.
So not necessarily a bad idea but you have to consider the downsides as well as the upsides when looking at this sort of thing.
@@silverjohn6037 It can be used for civilian missions in Africa
@@thekraken1173 : Yeah, this sort of thing would probably be best suited to non-military roles. Would be interesting to see an attempt to adapt this design to full VTOL too, maybe with low-mounted rotors and thrust redirection flaps like on the Curtis Vertiplane or Fairchild VZ-5.
Replace the tail plains with a pair of swiveling fans and you've got an excellent starting point for a fast, long range drone with nearly full VTOL capabilities.
@UC6c3GU25MfPhWL6VukH48cg Because batteries and electric motors will be heavier than jet or turboprop engines and fuel for the foreseeable future.
I honestly love this plane. I remember a game back in the day called secret weappns over normandy that had this plane in it. Honestly its design is hard to forget
Same here, loved that game
Absolutely great game.
I thought we were thinking of the same game, but I remember this aircraft being playable in one of the Raiden games
@@beezzarro I think it was Strikers 1945 unless I'm misremembering. I remember playing the pancake all the time on arcade.
@@RandomTask678 you're probs right. was one of the weapons an energy snake that just shot out one beam that would get thicker with upgrades and just stick to one enemy until it got destroyed?
I remember playing Strikers 1945 on the PS1. That was the first time I’d ever seen the Pancake.
You totally miss the underlying design philosophy. The high aspect ratio wing has been known by many as very efficient. I.E. lift to drag ratio. The problem is with very long wing tips it has great wing tip vortices-, where the high pressure air under the wing rushes to the low pressure area on top of the wing. These vortices (which Geese take advantage of in their V formations) are minimalized by having short wing tips like the mustang you put up, and also by modern airliner winglets. Zimmerman created a very direct solution by putting the props right on the wing tips rotating in the opposite direction as the vortices thereby cancelling that inherent drag and maximizing the inherent advantages of the high aspect wing. This design and it's inherent efficiency remains untapped except by the very expensive Osprey. Commercial aircraft could do well to perfect the design. Small frontal area turbo-props could be used right in the wingtips and avoid the drive train issues. Zimmerman has left his gift for some forward thinking designer to run with it!
Myth and urgan legend.
The props in Zimmerman's plane did not cancel the vortices.
NACA tests showed that it did not gain anything or particularly change anything with the situation of the props.
The Arup S-2 which this was based on, had all the same flight qualities (super-STOL, stall-proof), but did not use Zimmerman's propeller situation. Did not suffer from lots of drag.
The fact that the V-173 was able to fly super-slowly showed that the wing-tip driven "parachute lift" was in effect which means the props didn't counter them in any meaningful way.
It got its flying qualities solely from the planform, not the awkward and over-complex situation of the props.
@@JFrazer4303 That one would be great candidate for "electrification". What do you think?
wingtip props don't cancel vortices, they move them further out as they increase the effective span. there's an advantage to tip props but it's not huge ... debated but less than 15%, and designers are not keen on the characteristics of losing an engine. in general short heavily loaded spans generate larger vortices than long lightly loaded spans. the tips of long spans do the same thing as they would if they were folded up as winglets, except they don't fit so well in airports
having engines at the edges would create quite a big bending moment and overall really stress the wings, so the extra mass needed to reinforce the wings would probably counteract any gains
@@DS-pk4eh
I want to build one.
I haven't done anything since control-line profile planes and balsa and tissue paper rubber-band power, decades ago.
IDK what materials or tools...
Found and Explain: The Flying Pancake is the slowest airplane ever made.
MacCready Gossamer Albatross: Are you sure about that?
The Polish PZL M-15 Belphegor is also slower than the pancake (at 200kph)... and it's a jet =)
The po 2 128km/h speed
Helium filled rc plane fly at walking speed (｢`･ω･)｢
For areo-bradia, how about another Polish plane, the Wilga? Saw one at Abbotsford I could probably outrun on foot (then).
Fiesler Storch?
Vought: "I can design a super slow aircraft!"
Sikorsky: "Hold my beer."
Focke-Wulf Fw 61 from 1936 want to have a word with you...
Fear Sikorsky
*laughs in polikarpov Po-2*
Arup planes did all of that in the '30s. Fast on little power, and super-STOL.
Are any of these other super-STOL planes also stall-spin proof with amazing climb rate?
Will not stall. Flow does _not_ separate from the top of the wing as ~
But a later version, the UD-4L Cheyenne Dropship, would see plenty of action fighting xenomorphs.
"We're on an express elevator to hell. Going down!"
I used to work at the vought factory in Grand Prairie Texas where they restored the V-173 and got to see it on a daily basis. A truly remarkable aircraft
I worked there as well. Blackhawk program. Better than a museum. You could actually touch them and look inside.
@@hidingposer3422 I started as an IE intern doing time studies on Blackhawk during the 2nd shift back in 2007
@@insertjjs So.....your one of the reasons first shift got 40 hours for 2 hours work and I got 1,5 for 9 hours work? I was there in 2009. $10.85 an hour working on flight critical components and training other people? I had to go.
German: flying wing
American: flying pancake
Both live up to their name very well
Soviet: flying tank
Japan: flying bomb
@@taryhunter5584 true
Sack As-6 was to be a pancake, but it probably needed more nose-up angle on the landing gear to take off.
See the modern Rowe "UFO" circular plane, and the '30s Arup planes from Indiana ("flying heel-lift" on youtube). the Arup was the origin of the Vought V-173 flapjack and the Sack plane, and otehrs.
See also the '30s Nemeth "parachute plane" with circular wing. Faster than the plane which the fuselage came from, stall-spin proof, landing roll near zero with any wind.
Mmmmm hungry
OK, but how SLOW could it fly? This would make a great design for spotting or aerial photography.
@Bryce Kleinschmidt Because a fast plane is gone in a few seconds. The closer to the ground, the greater the problem. A super slow plane uses less fuel than a helicopter but can monitor the ground for extended periods. It can also drop cargo very accurately.
This was my favorite plane in that arcade game: Striker 1945
It had been my understanding that more powerful engines would have been installed in the production models giving it a much higher speed, so while it could fly slow, it could also fly very fast. It could also generate its own lift with its propellers, initiating a limited hover from very little forward movement.
correct, the designs goal was to have a very fast (in fact intended to be one of the the fastest prop fighters) yet still have docile low speed handling for carrier and short field operations. V173 was only a proof of concept for XF5U.
Negative. The Super-STOL stall-proof qualities came solely from the very-low aspect-ratio planform.
NACA tunnel tests with the Vought V-173 showed that it did not gain anything or particularly change anything versus normal sized props spinning the other way.
The Arup and very many other very-low aspect-ratio planes reproduced everything the Vought plane did, and were not slow and draggy but sleek and quick on little power.
@@JFrazer4303 negative, i have the gun
This was actually a bit faster than any -frontline- _piston engined_ fighter at the time and so hardly slow except when considering it's low takeoff and stall speed.
The slow speed would enable them to operate from short deck escort ships. The helicopter would eventually fill most of the roles it was designed for.
Had the widest range of speed compared to anything developed at that time, but I suppose this video only focuses on the take-off and landing characteristics. The top speed mentioned here may have just been engine/driveshaft limitations of the prototype.
Its two different planes, the original prototype was slow, but the military fighter aircraft prototype had a high theoretical top speed. Which wouldnt be shocking, considering its a compact plane with two extremely powerful prop engines.
However, theoreticals dont get you anything, if you cant even do a full flight test because of high vibrations. Vibrations are often a limiting factor towards an aircrafts top speed, and in this plane they were so bad you couldn t even take off.
@@Sherwoody it's funny because I see a ton of comments describing how this could be used in a ton of different applications that Helicopters already do. Low flying Search and Rescue, very short flights, and affordability. I was just thinking "You mean like a really cheap Helicopter?"
The XF5U didn't even fly, due to excessive vibration from the powertrain.
It wasn't necessary: it didn't and you don't need to try to "counter" wing-tip vortices, very-low aspect-ratio planform planes are not inherently draggy, many have been sleek and quick on little power.
The Navy, if they were serious about fast, STOL planes, should have built the Boeing 390/391.
11:02
Sounds like the aviation counterpart to the Cadillac Eldorado. "Make it heavier, people will love it!"
Animator/Author: The propeller blade tips go: top -> out, outboard -> down, counter-rotating, both sides critical. The idea was to keep a high pressure cushion under the aircraft. It worked fantastically well. You need to modify the animation.
The engineer/designer's concept was vindicated, this could have been a very successful design but it took too long to iron out the problems and by the time that was done the jet age had already arrived. Like the Bear Cat and many other post WWII "Super Props" we will never know just what this design might have been capable of. I love designs like this that dare to stray from the conventional and push design in a new direction, even if the design fails what is learned often advances aerodynamic understanding.
I'd hardly call this a superprop. More like a superflop.
Yes, this looks like would be useful against u-boats operating from merchant carriers as in an WW 2 oil or grain ship with an flight deck. Not the jets who killed it I think but more escort carriers and fewer u-boats.
How do you figure the designers were vindicated? We can not really know what the performance would be like because it never flew. And the fact that no one else came up with anything similar, say a turboprop VSTOL tells me the concept was probably flawed.
@@scootergeorge9576 It flew in testing, and was eventually reincarnated as the V-22 Osprey.
@@ouroboris - The XF5U never went beyond high speed taxi test. A much lower powered proof of concept aircraft did fly. The XF5U was scheduled to be shipped to California, for flight testing but it was canceled and the aircraft broken up and scrapped. And the V-22 is completely different. It is not a fighter but is vertical takeoff and landing. The aircraft was a loser. And following it was the XF-6U Pirate and the F7U Cutlass. Three losers in a row. Were it not for the F-8 Crusader, LTV would probably folded as an aircraft manufacturer.
Legends say Found and Explained was eating Pancakes as it premiered
True
correct. they were delicious!
@@FoundAndExplained holy moly 🗿🤝
Flying pancakes with sausage balloons are a great way to start your day.
I worked at Vought in Grand Prairie TX. Our retiree group were restoring the VF-173 to be displayed at the Smithsonian. Charles Lindberg flew it. He never did anything wrong.....until he flipped the VF-173 on a beach.
Next time, the sunbathers won't get so lucky :D
Never did anything wrong except open collaboration with nazis
With some updates, it may be of use as an agricultural plane.
Suggestion: do the Lunex project
I just love the fact that Adam and Eve sponsored a airplane video 😂 but in all seriousness good video and keep up the good work!
No lie, I heard the sponsor and immediately said *out loud*: heywaitaminute, that's not pancakes!
Lmao I wasn't ready for it
Right. Like defuk? But whatever makes the money.
You seem to ignore the need/requirement that the propeller blades be large, counter-rotating, and must rotate in the direction that negates the wing tip vortex. Which is central to the whole point of the design. Also that you cannot fly with one of the propellers out.
A myth. The props did not counter the vortices, NACA tunnel tests showed that they didn't help or particularly change anything.
See the Arup S-2 for where this concept came from (minus Zimmerman's work towards a VTOL tail-sitter).
See the '90s Wainfan "Facetmobile".
The very low aspect-ratio planform is not inherently draggy.
We played this in my AFJROTC class today. So imagine the surprise when the ad segment came on.
Actually this plane was a requirement for a new fighter for the pacific, the plane could take off at, and don’t hold me to this 40MPH from a carrier deck and it’s top speed of, 500MPH. This would put it on par with the early jets of the day. This also would’ve allowed it to intercept kamikaze and other suicide aircraft.
This thing is really bad carrier fighter, It require 541 ft of runway when there is 25 knot headwind, F4U-4 only require 288ft on same condition. There is a reasons that USN never put this thing into service
@@tomshen320
The F-4 corsairs gull wing design. Gave that appearance that it was coming to Get ya.
I surmise they went back to the 20mm. canons away from the 50's was for more capacity. I would like to think. All the modifications that came about with the B&C versions were made due to input from the pilots flying earlier versions.
Vought later in the 1950's chose the 20 mm for that reason. On the F-8 Crusader.
Another phenomenal contribution to our Navy's air wing.
ive heard that the design was meant to be stall-less, which worked so well that the plane accidentally inverted itself during a stall test and flew back the way it came, straight into a pine forest
@@snapcutter9596 going to the 20s was largely due to the planes getting larger heavier and faster. :P
@@tomshen320 Actually, we don't know how much runway it would take, as they never did a flight test, just taxiing. Given that the V-173 test craft did a 200ft run with no headwind, and *less than 50 foot run with a 30mph headwind,* I think getting the XF5U off an Essex's deck (despite it being 5x heavier) will be little problem. Jets are what killed this project, not any lack of performance to spec.
hmm, the static pictures show the rotors should counter-rotate. The moving picture SEEMED to show rotors rotating the same direction. I guess this must be an illusion associated with the frame rate. Nevertheless this suggests the rotors speeds were not matched.
Well spotted. Actually, in the few seconds of REAL footage around 8:28 and 13:57, they can be seen clearly to be counter-rotating. It is only in the CGI scenes, that they are rotating in the same direction, even though they have counter-rotating propellers. It's most obvious around 13:30, where they slow down. The left propeller (right side on the screen) is turning the wrong way! It only shows that the people making these CGI have no understanding of aviation principles, or didn't care to do it properly.
This happens extremely often and seriously puts me off, very evident
Since the way this plane works is actually that it took advantage of the upward rotating half of the vortex column produced by those giant propellers, to both create an increased upward force below the wing, and to completely eliminate the wingtip loss it would otherwise have.
If the propellers were oriented to spin in their opposite directions, with the downward rotating half of the vortex column hitting the top of the wing, the plane likely wouldn't even get off the ground.
@@foolishwatcher the model looks fine apart from that? Its a CZcams video mate, its such a simple mistake as an animation turning the wrong way. In all honesty, if this had millions of dollars worth of production behind it I'd agree with you in that it would be a shock to see a detail like that missed.
Try to not pair a minor detail easy to miss with absolute intent to ruin the immersion of a floating digital model.
The props counter-rotate. Zimmerman's genius was that the props "unwound" the wing tip vortices, which had bedeviled earlier low-aspect designs. This, in turn, provided the flapjack's amazing 25:1 functional airspeed envelope (20-500 kts). Incidentally, the airfoil cross-section and the planform had the same shape, differing only by their "thickness".
I go to the frontier museum all the time. Love looking at this thing. Really does look like a ufo, I love it.
Ahhhhhh! These must be the planes the USPS use. It's all getting cleaer, TY YT !🐰
I like how most of us don’t even know what Adam and Eve was and got spooked when we searched it up
Love the sponsorship, makes the channel more “fun”.
I caught it when I was skipping forward. Don’t get why they keep sponsoring random people
this looks like a great drone aircraft design, with the super small engines, you could make a electric version that just loiters, and chugs along.
It needs more throttle to stay aloft at such low speeds than it would for an efficient cruise.
At very high nose-up A, the vortices create huge drag, while at cruise they're sleek. This is amply demonstrated on the Arup planes which this is based off, and other like the Facetmobile.
“I feel the need, I FEEL THE NEED FOR…oozing!” -it’s pilot high-fiving his crewmate prior to takeoff.
This odd looking plane is also in Strikers 1945 II and in Secret Weapons Over Normandy
The propellers were counter rotating. They washed the air downward over the wingtips to counter the effect of wingtip vortecis. The port side prop spun counter clockwise and the starboard prop spun clockwise. I love watching your animations, but please think about these things.
Counter rotating props are used in any multi prop plane. It also create balance between the left and right side of the plane. Counter-rotation is to balance propeller torque effects thus eliminating any problems
"Counter rotating" "the egg beaters are lobbing" was my take.
I think the speed and short takeoff would really be fun in one of these if we slap an experimental sticker on it.
A massive corn holio panel party to only want to do it once,, they had two engines. (2) 12 hour days later with 2 guys headphones on using idgaf comms yeah the vibrations could be fixed.
Don't reuse screws you'll hate yourself. Save all the screws from your recent addition on your house after a teardown and put it back together, after doing that every 4 days for two years you'd expect something to be right. Vegas baby. Be an engineer not a mechanic or you'll just find in aviation new ways to reuse toilet paper the stunning effects of it across the spectrum.
Spot on mate.
@@Batalia122 In this case, the designer was working towards a tail-sitter VTOL, though neither of the planes had enough power or appropriate landing gear.
He supposedly wanted to counter wing-tip vortices.
As it happens, he didn't: its slow-flying ability and being stall-proof were due to the planform, not the props.
@@JFrazer4303 "He supposedly wanted to counter wing-tip vortices.
As it happens, he didn't: its slow-flying ability and being stall-proof were due to the planform, not the props."
How is the second part of that comment disproving the first?
Any low-aspect ratio wing, no matter how you design it, will have a massive issue with wingtip vortices.
There's high pressure below the wing, low pressure above, and on a short wing, the air has only a short way to travel to get around the wingtip. Creating a monster of a vortex, loosing lift and creating drag in the process.
For this design to work, the wingtip props were just as essential as the shape of the fuselage. Otherwise it would drag penalty itself to death.
I remember fawning over this plane when I was in middle school seeing it in popular mechanics.
It`s a very respectful airplane, it "flies as slow as humanely possible"
"become a patreon" lol
The opening statement was actually..."to fly as humanely slow as possible"... 😄
(Not: as slow as humanly possible)
-Now, what the * does that mean ??
Humanely slow ??
(Or even if he meant "humanly").
Anyhoo...funny ❗😁😜
I picked that up too. He obviously doesn’t get anyone to “proof read” his videos before uploading.
The V-173 was a proof of concept machine, never intended to be a production machine. Identifying issues was it's goal, not speed as evidenced by the fixed landing gear.
the version featured in the 3d was the production model.
This aircraft might have made a huge difference in the Atlantic as submarine defense.
Liberty ships had a length of 441 feet so a partial upper deck conversion could have created a potent anti submarine platform.
By the time this thing would have been getting made, they may as well have used the subsequent Victory class transport vessels.
@@SephirothRyu
The Arup planes from Indiana proved the concept in the '30s "(see the "Flying Heel-Lift" youtube).
A larger plane like a twin engine the size of the Avenger or S-2 would have taken off with 10 kts deck speed with any wind and headway, and did not require more advanced technology than the mid'30s.
They just ignored it, and when they did look at it they did a parody with the outward turning wing-tip props.
3:50
A 3blade propeller...
5seconds later, in the sketch we see 4 blades
Those gigantic props on the same line as the pilots face.
It must have been scary to see those huge blades in line to the left and right.
Suggestion: A video about the Dornier Do 335 Pfeil/Arrow?
needed!
We have the flying wonderwaffle and the flying pancake, all we need is the flying toast, egg and bacon and we have the flying breakfast squadron
The Me 163 was known as the Power Egg, so now we just need toast and bacon
We have the egg, the Me 163 was nicknamed "Kraftei" (Power egg)
Sausage balloons.
Weapon loadouts
BB-82 500 lb Banana bomb
30mm sticky syrup squirt guns
HDM-9 Hotdog air-air missiles
Weapon loadouts
BB-82 500 lb Banana bomb
30mm sticky syrup squirt guns
HDM-9 Hotdog air-air missiles
Your videos are amazing and it's obvious how much you love producing them!
Well this explains the 50s and 60s sightings of flying saucers. Clearly the first few people to report them saw these things.
The first was Kenneth Arnold in '47. He reported 8 things somewhat like this, no fins or apparent canopies, all mirror silver. They were apparently escorting a larger paraboloid all-wing.
And they were all going Mach 2+, so no, not something we were building.
A jet powered plane like this wouldn't be silent, wouldn't hover silently, wouldn't zip off from a zero start to Mach 5 in a second.
When ever found and explain
Says pancake the more hungry I am
Oh wow ,another great video and you certainly never disappoint us with your amazing videos.Keep up the great work and have a great week
Thank you so much 😀
That segue to the sponsor was so unexpected and well executed. Bravo sir.
Thank you kindly!
absolutely was not expecting the adam & eve sponsorship that hit me like a bus
I think they might be clueless about what Adam & Eve sells.
Does anyone look at this and think A 10 back to the future vibes .
It was incredibly tough, manouverable . Run turboprops or turbofans... 🤔😎
This and the Moonbat always make me want to play what if..
The other point is those self same jets were supplanted in combat by Skyraiders flying coin missions and skymasters doing FAC and rescue coordination ... This would have been able to withstand heavy small arms ground fire and stay in one piece.👽🤠
Build a plane on the same pattern with turboprops as a CAS platform.
Love the Moonbat! That thing always reminded me of some Pulp Hero's ride. "What if Doc Savage designed a warplane?"
@@dphalanx7465
Stealth before stealth...a bit like an E type jag is aerodynamic before wind tunnels ... 😉😎
V22 Osprey is the closet thing ,we have now. I would not be surprised if they didn’t look over the design.
One thing about this, is that to fly slowly, it must have ~30+ degrees nose-up. Try fitting a big gun, with -30 degrees down angle.
Either that or mount the guns inside normally, and it doesn't fly super-slowly for gunnery.
The C-21 Dragon Assault Ship comes to mind from the James Cameron Avatar flick. The helicopter of it's time with a higher payload. 450 mph. Now that is handy.
The fictional C-21 is more like a well armed flying car concept.
It would be a poor design in real life. Disk loading would be high compared to a single rotor helicopter (more power needed for the same amount of lift) and it relies on mechanically tilting the ducted fans instead of cyclic pitch which would make for slower attitude control and more power needed to move the whole assembly. With a helicopter the angle of attack of the blade changes as it rotates around the hub i.e. the blades will have a higher angle of attack on one side of the disk than the other which in turn increases lift on one side and decreases it on the other, this requires less mass to be moved and is faster than tilting the whole thing.
And no matter how powerful your engines are or how efficient the rotor blades design, those same advances can be applied to a single rotor helicopter as well so single rotor helicopters would always be ahead.
@@atomicskull6405 yes, but top speed is limited in single rotor helicopter to around 200 mph due to procession of the blade lift... for 1945 this was a slick solution short take off and heavy lift body.
I wonder what a modern version with jet engines and modern materials would look like and behave.
Everybody who's talking about electric replacements, keep in mind that these are 80 horsepower constant motors, a Tesla only uses approximately 30 to 50 horsepower to maintain freeway speeds, and a small 80 horsepower electric motor isn't made to run for more than 30 minutes
I'm just going to put this out there so that it is actually said somewhere, but there are many planes that are both significantly slower than this plane and could take off in shorter distances. Many of these even predate it (look at the Po-2 or the Fi-156 for example). So it's scarcely revolutionary in that regard.
This aircraft was created as an experimental proof of concept for a different wing arrangement than usual and flying as slow as possible was not one of the stated goals for it. It is still interesting nonetheless and definitely one of the most unusual aircraft of that period.
A german engineer also attempted to create a circular wing aircraft at about this time, its called the Sack AS-6, and it has a pretty interesting history as well
The reason the plane was made was not only was it capable of short runway takeoffs, but could *land* on a short runway as well. Why? It was made to operate from the deck of a Liberty ship that had a desperate need of aircraft to defend themselves against the Luftwaffe.
There was some freighters that could launch a fighter from a catapult, but they could not recover the fighter (which I believe for the British was a Hawker Hurricane). The catapult system also ate up a bunch of space that could have been used for war-time cargo.
Float Plane Fighters required a crane to recover in addition to the catapult system, and by then the performance of float places was too far behind German long range fighters and bombers to make a difference.
The Flying Flapjack only needed a fairly small amount of cargo space for its fuel and ammo. It could even perform as Anti-Submarine Warfare against a sub that was surfaced.
PS: The Sack AS-6 failed because the Germans failed to take into account how much lift was lost over the edges of the plane. The Flying Flapjack had those two engines and propellers to counteract the loss of lift, and therefore could fly.
@@neorenamon Landing on a ship still requires an arrestor hook, it isn't really practical to make a plane that can stop very quickly on a ship without some external aid. And at that point you're better off using a conventional design with better performance at low speeds to make landing easier.
A conventional STOL plane is perfectly capable of landing on short runways as well (often less than 100m) and you'd be hard pressed to beat that even with modern planes. But as I said, you'd equip a plane with an arresting hook and install arresting wires on the ship as well anyway, so that kinda gets rid of the whole point of using a specially designed STOL aircraft. The other issue is that STOL aircraft often are not very fast (this specific iteration of the flying pancake only had a top speed of around 220km/h if I'm not mistaken) which is really not ideal for dealing with fighters or potential attack aircraft anyway (this thing is slower than the stall speed of some aircraft, so imagine how outclassed it would be in a fight, not to mention it's a pretty easy target given it's basically a big circle)
Honestly the eventual solution they chose of using an escort carrier or single use catapult launched Hurricanes was a far more practical and worthwhile solution than this thing would have ever been.
It's an interesting exercise in unorthodox design nonetheless, but ultimately it falls short in some crucial areas. Probably the most notable one here is the fact it had very poor handling and difficult controls at lower speeds, which is absolutely the last thing you want when doing any sort of carrier operations, especially on a small flight deck.
Neither the PO-2, nor the FI-156 was a fighter aircraft, the whole point of this aircraft was to have a high performance aircraft that could land on a freighter or noncarrier warship. Quite a bit different then a spotter aircraft.
@@kdrapertrucker if the point was to have a high performance aircraft they wouldn't have bothered with a completely unorthodox STOL design. As mentioned in my previous comment this thing had awful low-speed handling and its top speed was laughable for the time, especially for a fighter. Carrier-based operations largely eliminate the reasons STOL exists in the first place, and there were already sufficient solutions to the problem. My comparison to the Po-2 and Fi-156 was to demonstrate that the flying pancake fell short as a STOL design, whether those aircraft were designed for the same role or not does not change the fact that it was a failed, dead-end design itself
@@karukurokami It had two engines of 80 HP.
The XF5U never flew, so any talk about what it might have done is speculation.
It also would have done remarkably well with jets.
See the Boeing "flapjack" model 390.
Single center prop just like the Arup S-2 which Zimmerman based this on.
Sleek and quick on little power, stall-spin proof, great handling, fast climb rate>
It would have been virtually identical to the Arup planes which adequately tested the planform and showed that it was better in just about every respect to "normal" planes.
I think there is STILL a place for the design. How about bush planes? Or ground support attack aircraft? Do you realize how difficult it would be for ground troops to take aim at such a silhouette? Turboprops would be perfect for the design!
0:25 seeing those props revolve in the same direction hurts my brain.
Having animators that have an idea of the function of the object they're modelling helps.
Again at 0:47, here the stationary props are both clearly designed to rotate left. (at least THAT was right in the shot mentioned previously)
The shot at 8:36 proves that the guys assembling the wind tunnel model didn't have an idea about the principles either; left and right propeller are swapped.
The argumentation at 3:42 is way off. NACA certainly knew that a wing like that would have highly 3-dimensional flow characteristics, with the airflow being as much lateral as longitudinal. That was the reason to put the props at the wingtips and have them rotate so they "shovel" air under the wing.
The high angle of attack is a necessity due to the very low increase of lift over angle of attack of extremely low aspect ratio wings.
In short: you have no idea about the aerodynamics of this highly extraordinary craft.
You may have found it (not that it needed finding, aviation enthusiasts are well aware of it.) But you certainly have not explained it.
When I was watching the History channel back when I was 9 years old, they legit no joke said this was made to fly underwater and come up for surprise bombing on ships.
I am serious, no joke.
Seriously, no joke?
My favourite on Strikers 1945
I know this is nit picking. The animation of the all metal pancake seems to have the rotors spinning in the same direction. Don't many dual rotor aircraft use contra rotating props?
Considering all images and even animation of it standing still as well as the historic footage shown show them as counter rotating, i fairly sure that was a genuine mistake on the animators part. Good to state it, but in no way reducing the quality
@@dominiklehn2866 to be fair, I'm not able to produce such nice animations. I'm not knocking the animator. That's why I preceded the statement with it being a nit pick. It's a miniscule detail. I was a bit curious if the animator was correct and I'm wrong. I was kinda hoping I would be proven wrong and the animation was correct. I thought maybe that was a reason for some of the vibration.
@@birdmun to be fair, after reading through some other comments you pointed it out in the most polite way. But yeah, I'm pretty sure it's a miniscule animation error. The animation is still fantastic
Not only are dual rotor aircraft usually counter-rotating, it was an essential feature in the case of the V-173.
The reason most aircraft don't use a low-aspect ratio wing like this is that they cause massive wing vortices.
The high pressure air below the wing is driven around the wingtip to the low pressure air above it. And the shorter the wing, the more air does so, loosing lift, creating a vortex and inducing drag.
The Flying Pancakes rotors were both spinning down on the outward turn, creating counter-vortices that cancelled each wingtip vortex out.
This was pretty much the only way to make a low-speed, low-aspect ratio wing workable, with a brilliantly simple solution.
"Takes off in 200 feet, a record short distance." Let me introduce you to Bush pilots.
As a 6+ ton combat plane... (P-47 or Avenger was 7+ tons. Hellcat was just less) And can those bush plane do 480+ knots? Carrying a couple of tons of payload? Being totally stall-spin proof?
Dude, thanks for finding and explaining this.
Somebody should build a new F5U. It would be amazing at airshows!
See the Rowe "UFO" on youtube.
I feel the need for….slow.
This damn channel got me good.
Can't stop watching these clips.
Well made, sir!
I gotta see if people have made any of these on creation games (like simple planes) im immensely curious to see how this cute design flies
P-40 Warhawks on a carrier deck at 7:45. This was probably footage of the 325th Fighter Group aboard the USS Ranger. A year earlier, the 33rd FG participated in OP Torch aboard a CVE using P-40s.
Blew my mind when I saw this crazy thing at the Frontiers of Flight Museum in Dallas. Had no idea it existed. Been a favorite of mine ever since. Thanks for the great video!
11:30 -- The thing which is most amazing to me regarding this design is that it is more than a little reminiscent of the V-22 Osprey.
It’s really really not
@@thereinthetrees_5626 Oh No?
* STOL Capable
* Very Big Props with larger than normal ground clearance
The major difference is having variable "Thrust / Hover" settings for the nacelles. Other than that....
@@jamespfp In that case, a shit load of planes are like ospreys.
You have two very general similarities out of the loads of differences
@@thereinthetrees_5626 LMAO you're being intentionally obtuse. Greater ground clearance and lifting area (thus short take off and landing). That's actually a rarer combination.
*AND THEN* there's the complex linkages that connect the engines to the props in the case of the Flying Pancake. That is definitely comparable to the Osprey, and puts both these planes in a very rare category.
Oh Well. Must suck to be Absolutist to every fault.
XF5U was a prototype for a high speed short take off and landing airframe, it could hit 490mph
The Japanese surrendered after hearing that they could have been attacked by thicc planes
found and explained could you do a video on weird ww2 aircraft like a compilation of sorts?
yes I must!
@@FoundAndExplained if you do can you put my name in the video?
Are we not going to talk about how nonchalant he was with the Adam and Eve promotion?
0:45
I just love how the Corsairs have French markings
"Basically, I'm very stol"
"Don't adjust your phone screen"
Are most ppl really watching that on phones?
Yeah
These days? Yes.
I've long wondered why they didn't try the basic idea with jet engines? This might have solved the problem that the F-14's swing wings were meant to solve and without all the added expense and maintenance that caused that plane to be prematurely retired.
And ever since, they've been ignoring it.
Both the US and he USSR toyed with circular wing fighters. The Avrocar was just a test for the VTOL half (see the late '50s Avro Canada/USAF weapons system 606), but he Russian "Sukhanov" versions ignored that and built gliders. They apparently dropped it when the US did (not because it or the Avro lift engine didn't work)
If the Navy had built the Boeing (model 390) flapjack, it would have taken over the fleet and most of military aviation, and much of civil aviation.
I love how you spent 3:00 minutes only talking about the shape without going into why, and just respecting calling it a pancake
I would like to see a video about the G10 Fugaku, the intercontinental bomber thought up by Imperial Japan
It's basically japanese b-52
More like the B-36 or the proposed British "Victory Bomber".
IIRC, by all accounts from the test pilots, they all loved how maneuverable yet stable it was
The original nickname was the Zimmer Skimmer. The two very back surfaces on the rear of the wing, were flaps with elevon control for high angle of attack takeoffs and landings. The short wings for flight, same elevon configuration.
Definitely not the ‘slowest plane ever made’. Back at the start of the 20th century a Wright Flyer, Farman or Boxkite could take off in as short a distance and fly at a similar slow speed. The difference was they wouldn’t go much faster. Also NACA designed and designated literally hundreds of aerofoil sections; this thing just happened to use one of them.
The V-173 was a proof of concept design it wasn’t meant to go fast, the planned production XF5U would have had a top speed of 452mph
It may have failed to achieve their goals but it certainly wins the "goofiest museum display ever" award! :-D
This gives "the pancake fell down the floor" a whole new meaning
It was so slow it got bird strikes from the rear.
Strikers 1945!
Brilliant video, keep it up Nick!
Glad you enjoyed it!thanks wee!
I remember unlocking this plane in Secret Weapons over Normandy, it was the derpiest thing i'd ever seen and I loved it.
This looks like a plane that I would design in Spore
Why are there so many rendered shots with the left hand prop spinning the wrong way ?
I think that comes down to the fact that the renders represent the production model, while when they wanted to show the actual prototype they gust got footage.
@@t65bx25 then why were the props rendered to show they should spin in opposite directions?
I expect most viewers never noticed that detail.
No idea why -- but I love it . I want one .
Build a large scale RC model ...see existing vids. It works really well and has done since early control line versions... but they aren't all that slow.😵
Actually, the flying pancake, also known as the Vought V-173, was a concept design which was used to test aerodynamics, and controllability of such a design for a fighter. The result was the Vought XF5U "Flying Flapjack". Yeah, the name sounds funny, but don't let it fool you. The XF5U could survive a tremendous amount of punishment. (In fact, they had to destroy them with a wreaking ball once the project was cancelled). It's top speed was 452 mph which is insanely fast for a prop fighter in those days. It had an incredible armament too; 6 x .50 (12.7mm) machine guns, and could also hold 2x 1000 pound bombs. Those machine guns would shred any fighter to pieces. Sadly, they old made two of them, and both were scrapped after testing.
Always nice to see this craft flying around in World of Warplanes.
There are tons of wierd 2WW canceled aviation project. Can I look forward to more of sorts? I absolutely love this kond of "alternatively real weapons" :)
Unfortunately the military version never flew so we'll never know how slow that one truly was.
That was one of the weirdest non sensical sponsors I've ever seen
They have one at the museum here. Cool plane.