@isukaman Just what it says, a .60 cal. machine gun. The designation for the aircraft machine gun was T17E3. It was developed during WWII & tested through the early 50s. 20mm cannon turned out to be better for a/c use, and the .50 was better on the ground, so the .60 was dropped.
@isukaman Look up the 14.5x114mm round. Still being used today. And of course the Russians also had their own .50 cal., but with a larger case than the .50 BMG.
Government produced documents are generally not copyrighted. So if this is a video produced by the Government, I doubt you need to worry about copyright.
Taxpayers don't have to pay copyright royalties on things that their tax dollars paid for... That's the idea, anyway.
Plus, the whole access to government thing. Could you imagine if the IRS claimed copyright in the form 1040? Or if the congressional record was considered copyrighted?
@pramboy09 Even by 1940s standards, the music soundtrack on this old film is sickly melodramatic nationalist cinema sludge, likely to make any sensitive person feel sea-sick.
@dreamdiction: Ghastly music for 1945, just as modern aircraft videos have ghastly music from the current period. What is it with these damned aircraft videos?
Late Spitfires never had laminar flow wings. The Spitful did, as the Attacker, but soon they discover that the old Spitfire wing was better at high speeds. It isn't all about speed! In this one something doesn't look right...if they have put a RR Griffon or a R-4360 it would fly as hell...
Fighting for Democracy is an effort of futility. Communism or Islam will manage to find a way though or around it. Only Nationalism can save western culture and society.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@supressorgrid That General isn't here anymore and if he was I am sure he would have something to say about the sad state of affairs concerning our culture and society. Soldiers who fought on the side of the Allies and are still around have stated that what they were fighting for is not what we have today. They weren't fighting so race mixed procreation could be taking place on a scale never before seen in the history of the World. When a Commie Mulatto is Prez it is time for a change.
The XP-67 was doomed by its poor engine cooling and overambitious aerodynamics (which would not become practical for another 20 years). Stall behavior was so bad that test pilots actually refused to test its spin characteristics. It was no more maneuverable or faster than existing types like the P-51 Mustang, so when the prototype was gutted in a fire after 8 months of test flights, the AAF terminated the project.
@327409427 what? its apple pie goodness for the moms in the audience. back b4 tv's. when people went to the theater..think internet in a really big room with everyone online sitting with you. news,information,entertainment.
450mph estimated? Turned out to be just over 400mph. The laminar flow concept proved rather impractical on WW2 combat aircraft and didn't give the speed it was hoped to, even on the Mustang. The XI-1430 wasn't as reliable as it needed to be, either.
@rpurdey Yes. Laminar boundary flow cannot be achieved at higher Reynolds numbers. It only works at low, as in a windtunnel, on a slow sailplane with narrow chord, or a model plane. The aerodynamic shape is not failed though. Like a supercritical profile, It pushes compressibility to higher speeds, making it possible for P-51 to fly faster with a thicker wing. The thick wing again has a number of advantages, including lower drag under load.
I'll agree that against bombers slow-firing cannon would be devestating. The only fast-firing cannon that I know of was the German Mauser, which came in 20 & 30mm flavors and had a high muzzle velocity. The Orleikon was Swiss-made and just the opposite of the Mauser in fire rate & muzzle velocity; I believe it only came in 20mm. You'd have to get in close to be sure you hit another fighter; a bomber wouldn't matter as much. A good bomber killer is a given. Thanx.
Amazing that it was only a few years later,1954, the the English Electric Lightening was was hitting 80,000 ft (plus) and could intercept the Lockhead U2
You have to wonder if slow firing guns like that could even hit a plane though. You'd have to be right on them and have an awesome shot to lead to have any chance of a hit. Bomber killer though, that it can do :D
I think the Germans tried a similiar concept with their Donier twin engine fighter/bombers, only to learn during the Battle of Britain that they were inadequate against faster, more manuverable single engine fighters like the Spitfire. Bu then again, the British Mosquito, a twin engine fighter/bomber, was successful, so who knows how the "Moonbat" would have fared in combat?
@SuperTimebandit "Thousands of prototypes" is an exaggeration. Of those that actually left the drawing board few were put into production. The Nazi system of producing weapons was chaotic. For example tremendous time and effort was spent on developing the ME-163 which shot down less than a doz. B-17s. This was typical of Nazi mismanagement. America produced the weapons it NEEDED to win the war.
@MrKellysHeroes complete bs' dude. US army examined the plus and minus's of putting the M 26 into combat in the ETO in 1944' and came to the conclusion that -no need for heavy tank plus the added requirements of fuel and maintainence.
Gen Patton was one of the most outspoken critics of the M-26, mainly because of the Extra Gasoline that would have to be used to keep the Pershing moving. On top of this unlike the 75mm - 76mm the 90mm lacked effective HE round for infantry support requirements
@SuperTimebandit Incorrect. The Meteor and 262 were contemporary. Et al. It came down to strategic decisions regarding production versus technology. The allies decided to concentrate on numerical superiority. They could afford to! They had the fuel, the Nazis did not. A major miscalculation on their part. Hitler should have committed his forces to the goal of securing the Caucasus oil fields. Then entrenched.
The P-67 has long been my favorite "plane that was never produced." Still photos are quite rare - I never dreamed I woudl see a film of it i flight - thanks for posting
You know, i was humming to myself "War, huuh... what iiis it good for" and then i clicked on this.
The moonbat. Whaaat iiis it good for? Absolutely NO-THING raaawhhawhhaawh!!! xD
peepeevagi 5 days ago
@peepeevagi You be quotin' the Edwin Starr classic from 1969..."War"!! Great tune.
mcdonnell220 5 days ago
It was not actually used, but it's features spawed some very good planes... Take care, God bless...
CygnusatratusZ 2 weeks ago
Eight 60 cal, machine guns? What's a 60 cal. machine gun?
isukaman 1 month ago
@isukaman Just what it says, a .60 cal. machine gun. The designation for the aircraft machine gun was T17E3. It was developed during WWII & tested through the early 50s. 20mm cannon turned out to be better for a/c use, and the .50 was better on the ground, so the .60 was dropped.
SearTrip 1 month ago
@SearTrip I didn't know that. The Russians always seem to do us a couple of mm more. I wonder what their version of the T17E3 was.
isukaman 1 month ago
@isukaman Look up the 14.5x114mm round. Still being used today. And of course the Russians also had their own .50 cal., but with a larger case than the .50 BMG.
SearTrip 1 month ago
@SearTrip BUT, they can't soft-land a spacecraft on Mars.
isukaman 1 month ago
The first stealth plane ever built !!
choefrogg 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ya know, the German Tecno Dance music from Shoutcast makes pretty a good sound track to these clips.
ufoengines 1 month ago
Ya know, the German Tecno Dance music from Shoutcast makes pretty a good sound track to these clips.
ufoengines 1 month ago
Looks eerily like a distant relative of the German ME 262 ... does it not?
JflyG 1 month ago
Performance
Maximum speed: 405 mph (352 knots, 650 km/h) at 25,000 ft (7,600 m)
Cruise speed: 270 mph (235 knots, 435 km/h)
Range: 2,385 mi (2,074 nmi, 3,837 km)
Service ceiling: 37,400 ft (11,400 m)
Rate of climb: 2,600 ft/min (12.7 m/s)
Wing loading: 53.4 lb/ft² (260 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.06 hp/lb (0.09 kW/kg)
gmorganInFlorida 1 month ago
Area 51
SPAD58 2 months ago
EIGHT 37mm?!!! OMG
Blackrain4xmas 2 months ago
Can you imagine the recoil of six 37mm firing on this craft?
metalrod23 2 months ago
This screams prop Gloster Meteor lol
Warbirdguy1 3 months ago
Dear Santa:
I know what I want for Christmas...
crispycritterz 3 months ago
Government produced documents are generally not copyrighted. So if this is a video produced by the Government, I doubt you need to worry about copyright.
Taxpayers don't have to pay copyright royalties on things that their tax dollars paid for... That's the idea, anyway.
Plus, the whole access to government thing. Could you imagine if the IRS claimed copyright in the form 1040? Or if the congressional record was considered copyrighted?
robertplattbell1 3 months ago
Ghastly Music.
dreamdiction 3 months ago
@dreamdiction have you not watched any movies made in the 1940's-50's? standard music for the genre.
pramboy09 3 months ago
@pramboy09 Even by 1940s standards, the music soundtrack on this old film is sickly melodramatic nationalist cinema sludge, likely to make any sensitive person feel sea-sick.
dreamdiction 3 months ago
@dreamdiction: Ghastly music for 1945, just as modern aircraft videos have ghastly music from the current period. What is it with these damned aircraft videos?
Gruntol5 2 months ago
Probably not a practical fighter, but sure nice to look at!
mpgingdl 4 months ago
The music would be more suiting in a mushy love flick
frepi 4 months ago
Late Spitfires never had laminar flow wings. The Spitful did, as the Attacker, but soon they discover that the old Spitfire wing was better at high speeds. It isn't all about speed! In this one something doesn't look right...if they have put a RR Griffon or a R-4360 it would fly as hell...
vascoribeiro69 5 months ago
Damn it looks sleek as hell, what if they used turbofans on it? The body is super streamlined / very clean
GreenAce92 5 months ago
@GreenAce92 That would be the FH Phantom and F-2H banchee
upyr1 4 months ago
That is why the fastest Reno racers have Lam Flow wings, the late P47s and Spitfires switched to them, because they were disappointing?
beowulf342000 5 months ago
beautiful
tatarioyaji3 5 months ago
that plane looked like a mix of a catalina and a canberra!!..wierd
mikeryry 6 months ago 5
Fighting for Democracy is an effort of futility. Communism or Islam will manage to find a way though or around it. Only Nationalism can save western culture and society.
MrBEB123 7 months ago
@MrBEB123 Nuts. Only the frredoms given us by God as listed in the Constitution will save civilization.
supressorgrid 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@supressorgrid That General isn't here anymore and if he was I am sure he would have something to say about the sad state of affairs concerning our culture and society. Soldiers who fought on the side of the Allies and are still around have stated that what they were fighting for is not what we have today. They weren't fighting so race mixed procreation could be taking place on a scale never before seen in the history of the World. When a Commie Mulatto is Prez it is time for a change.
MrBEB123 6 months ago
@MrBEB123
They fought a racist ennemy, they didn't fight to promote racism, as you imply
frepi 6 months ago 2
The XP-67 was doomed by its poor engine cooling and overambitious aerodynamics (which would not become practical for another 20 years). Stall behavior was so bad that test pilots actually refused to test its spin characteristics. It was no more maneuverable or faster than existing types like the P-51 Mustang, so when the prototype was gutted in a fire after 8 months of test flights, the AAF terminated the project.
westlock 7 months ago
What’s with the violin music. Please !!!
327409427 8 months ago
@327409427 what? its apple pie goodness for the moms in the audience. back b4 tv's. when people went to the theater..think internet in a really big room with everyone online sitting with you. news,information,entertainment.
Tarten46 5 months ago
@st82nd You mean like a Learstang? Check out the former Miss Ashley II. Google Images "Learstang Miss Ashley".
rpurdey 8 months ago
450mph estimated? Turned out to be just over 400mph. The laminar flow concept proved rather impractical on WW2 combat aircraft and didn't give the speed it was hoped to, even on the Mustang. The XI-1430 wasn't as reliable as it needed to be, either.
rpurdey 9 months ago 5
@rpurdey Yes. Laminar boundary flow cannot be achieved at higher Reynolds numbers. It only works at low, as in a windtunnel, on a slow sailplane with narrow chord, or a model plane. The aerodynamic shape is not failed though. Like a supercritical profile, It pushes compressibility to higher speeds, making it possible for P-51 to fly faster with a thicker wing. The thick wing again has a number of advantages, including lower drag under load.
Vermiliontea 7 months ago
6x37mm is a pretty insane forward gun set up! Forget downing other planes 6x37mm could bring down the moon in chunks
Sleeper044 10 months ago
I'll agree that against bombers slow-firing cannon would be devestating. The only fast-firing cannon that I know of was the German Mauser, which came in 20 & 30mm flavors and had a high muzzle velocity. The Orleikon was Swiss-made and just the opposite of the Mauser in fire rate & muzzle velocity; I believe it only came in 20mm. You'd have to get in close to be sure you hit another fighter; a bomber wouldn't matter as much. A good bomber killer is a given. Thanx.
TheSV3 10 months ago
Amazing that it was only a few years later,1954, the the English Electric Lightening was was hitting 80,000 ft (plus) and could intercept the Lockhead U2
itsmepaul57 10 months ago 2
A straight wing prop-job........ even though they knew the Germans had been using swept wing and jet engines...... ????
itsmepaul57 10 months ago 2
"8-37mm cannons" good lord! steer clear!
pcostel1 1 year ago
Eight 37mm cannons could punch holes in anything that's not a battleship.
peepeevagi 1 year ago
@peepeevagi really? Of all the usernames you could've created, this is the one you chose?
pcostel1 1 year ago
Every other name i could think of was taken when i made this account xD
peepeevagi 1 year ago
@pcostel1 Beats the hell out of "mortensen1961".
mortensen1961 6 months ago
@peepeevagi It was 6, not 8. Still, that's sitll one helluva punch for forward-firing guns. A bomber-killer and heavy escort fighter.
TheSV3 10 months ago
You have to wonder if slow firing guns like that could even hit a plane though. You'd have to be right on them and have an awesome shot to lead to have any chance of a hit. Bomber killer though, that it can do :D
peepeevagi 10 months ago
A nice plane for an uchronic air combat game!
jerrymail 1 year ago
Allowiing for the tail it's an excellent example of low radar obserable design. Albeit more by accident than design.
GrigoriZhukov 1 year ago
Prototype caught fire and was destroyed. Army air corps decided it offered no advantage over existing fighters so program cancelled.
flyinDPOD 1 year ago
I wouldn't be surprized if the Moonbat wasn't partial inspiration for the design of the Archangel-12/Blackbird (A-12/YF-12/SR-71)
MadMichigander1313 1 year ago
The original firepower was 4 20mm cannons and 6 50. cals, then the design was changed to the equally formidable 6 37mm cannons
MadMilitiaMen 1 year ago
It was a night combat fighter, once produced, who was better in comparison with P-61 blackwidow?
kuluku 2 years ago
I think the Germans tried a similiar concept with their Donier twin engine fighter/bombers, only to learn during the Battle of Britain that they were inadequate against faster, more manuverable single engine fighters like the Spitfire. Bu then again, the British Mosquito, a twin engine fighter/bomber, was successful, so who knows how the "Moonbat" would have fared in combat?
TheKulu42 2 years ago
never produced,never fought.Germany had thousands of prototypes that were better.
maybe good firepower but would this plane fight against me 262 it would easy shot down.
Because the me 262 was much faster.
the next generation of german jets was already made with jets who are faster than 1100 km /h.
Really nice aircraft but absolutly not superb high technology
SuperTimebandit 2 years ago
@SuperTimebandit "Thousands of prototypes" is an exaggeration. Of those that actually left the drawing board few were put into production. The Nazi system of producing weapons was chaotic. For example tremendous time and effort was spent on developing the ME-163 which shot down less than a doz. B-17s. This was typical of Nazi mismanagement. America produced the weapons it NEEDED to win the war.
twobluehorses 1 year ago
@twobluehorses Nobody said Nazi Germany should win war or something,butthe technology was slightly ahead of he allies,thats a matter of fact.
The new jets were the step in a new chapter,also for america,because
america took all technolgy,like the V rockets and all the other jets,because
they were ahead.
1000 Sherman Tanks beat 10 tiger tanks,also a matter of fact,but tiger tank
is much better than a sherman.Ask the 15 sherman tank who were destroyed
by one tiger.
And usa dont won ww2 alone.
SuperTimebandit 1 year ago
@SuperTimebandit compare a medium sherman tank with a heavy tiger tank is stupid
stuart and t60 vs panzer 2
sherman, cromwell and t 34 76 vs panzer IV
pershing, comet, js2 vs panther and tiger
super pershing, js3 vs kingtiger
that would be fair compare a tiger with a sherman is like comparing a destroyer with a heavy cruiser
MrKellysHeroes 1 year ago
@MrKellysHeroes My comment was about that guy who said that america
only build that weapons that they needed to win war.
And for sure is that often Tigers fought vs shermans.Of course u can not
compare a sherman tank with a panther or tiger.
It was only an example that Nazi Germany had extremly good weapons.
SuperTimebandit 1 year ago
@SuperTimebandit ok
read something about general lesley j. mcnair without his opposition against a heavy tank the us army could have some m26 tank battalions in mid 1944
general mcnairs doctrine cost many lives
MrKellysHeroes 1 year ago
@MrKellysHeroes i will read abot him.Thx anyway
cheers m8
SuperTimebandit 1 year ago
@MrKellysHeroes complete bs' dude. US army examined the plus and minus's of putting the M 26 into combat in the ETO in 1944' and came to the conclusion that -no need for heavy tank plus the added requirements of fuel and maintainence.
Gen Patton was one of the most outspoken critics of the M-26, mainly because of the Extra Gasoline that would have to be used to keep the Pershing moving. On top of this unlike the 75mm - 76mm the 90mm lacked effective HE round for infantry support requirements
fluffy1931 1 year ago
@SuperTimebandit Incorrect. The Meteor and 262 were contemporary. Et al. It came down to strategic decisions regarding production versus technology. The allies decided to concentrate on numerical superiority. They could afford to! They had the fuel, the Nazis did not. A major miscalculation on their part. Hitler should have committed his forces to the goal of securing the Caucasus oil fields. Then entrenched.
sketchmeister 1 year ago
SIx 37mm machine guns !
More firepower as the Me 262 (4x 30mm)
Norderstedter29 2 years ago
The P-67 has long been my favorite "plane that was never produced." Still photos are quite rare - I never dreamed I woudl see a film of it i flight - thanks for posting
wescfe 2 years ago
Interesting to examine prototypes that never made it to production.
Fania54 2 years ago