Forgotten Aircraft - The Douglas XB-19

[TheSRalston]

Good thing the test pilot was wearing a khaki uniform, he needed that color after seeing what a wobbly take off and landing this plane had, lol...

[TheSRalston]

Why does a plane, when doing a test flight, doesn´t hide its landing gear? What a behemoth!!

[lupe045]

My gosh, with a cruising speed of just 135 mph a target 1750 miles away (3500 mile round trip) would be around a 24 hour mission.

[AnotherGlenn]

Is that plane unstable in pitch?

[twoZJs]

Back then general aviation works would design the wheel size in proportion with the aircraft size. That idea quit during the B-36 try-outs. So they tried multi-smaller tires on the main struts, Wa-Li! it works!

HawgMech, that plane at Kelly was a transport version of the B-36. Its being refurbished and is at the AF museum in Ohio.

[Hawgmech]

Don't know if it's still there, but one of these used to sit off the edge of the ramp at Kelly AFB TX. Last time I saw it was probably 1989.



[Contrajoe]

@Hawgmech I'm pretty sure that's the XC-99

[gto66solstice08]

Bugs Bunny flew one in the cartoon "Hare Force" , along with a pesky Gremlin

[powergirl901]

That's the most unstable take off and landing I've seen yet. Even the takeoff was wobbly, but maybe with 28 tons of bombs it would be smoother, who knows. The US Army made good with the B-47 though. (I know it's a USAF plane). That was a 3 man crew, nuclear capable, swept wing and faster than most fighters of the time. B-47 exceeded specifications and we bought thousands of them.

[freeman8128]

That's amazing! - Why did it not see production for WW2? What was the problem? Underpowered? The height of the Tail - If a problem - could have been solved as with the Lockheed Constellation by having more than one.

[madcitymcflyer]

Regarding the B-19: As with the Boeing B-15, both were strictly developmental airframes that incorporated much technology that was already in the pipeline with other designs, like the B-17, with the quest for extreme heavy lifting capacity and a strategic bombing platform. Neither Douglas Aircraft or Boeing could lick the problem of unsuitable powerplants to power their aircraft to altitude with a heavy payload. Both planes spent WW II as stateside transports and were later scrapped.

[madcitymcflyer]

It's sad that all of these warplanes came to an end as pots and pans, but we must remember that newer designs were already on the horizon while WW II was being fought, that the Army Air Force's mission was already changing to extreme long range bombardment (SAC), and thousands of planes that had an expected useful life of a few hundred hours had no mission or crews to man them. A B-17 with only test hours and a full complement of fuel could be had at war's end for about $1500. No takers.

[Tubetopfan1]

Behemoth plane but not unattractive. I wonder, since it was a proof of concept aircraft, why they even placed a canon on it. Must have been a public relations thing.

[zebadee277]

but how many crew would it need and how many more would of been lost in ww2

[ChingaChe]

This may be the plane we sold to the japanese to tie up their engineers on a no-win project pri0r to 12-7-41

[megatwingo]

What a shame that it was scrapped. Anyway: Thumbs up!  :)

[loudness96]

wow, great machine

[JTSpecial5150]

it didnt really pass with flying colours. such a shame. would have been good to see this in action

[fortress1133]

Compare her size to a football field... 212 feet is over 70 yards! No wonder take off and landing were a little... wavy. LOL!

[InfiniteMushroom]

@fortress1133 The wavy flight characteristics were probably from lack of harmony between the static Center of Gravity with the aerodynamic CG. I suppose they designed the bomber to be completely stable with a full bomb load. After that, the pilot is on his own to get the beast back home.

Apparently, they decided that wasn't going to work. At least they knew what NOT to do with the next bomber design!

[mandaltby]

It looks like the B 29, minus the nose. The wings and tail are the B29

[petie32]

@mandaltby If you compare the B17, B29, B36, C124 Globemaster and B50 the tail assemblies look superficially similar. Three different companies. The Boeing B15 and B17 were slightly earlier designs than the B19.

[JoshTehVideoMaker]

looks like a B-24 sort of

[crpdst2003]

called the concrete cracker......few fields at that time could handle her weight focused upon 3 gear wheels.... special lathe needed to turn and machine her gear struts. experimental and paved the way for better designs and better landing gear for future planes....BIg engines were way under power for her size ....

[walkertongdee]

where do you get all these videos bomberguy?

[Hanglands]

Length: 132 ft 2 in Wingspan: 212 ft 0 in Height: 42 ft 9 in Wing area: 4,492 ft² Empty weight: 140,230 lb Loaded weight: 158,930 lb Max takeoff weight: 164,000 lb Powerplant: 4× Allison V-3420-11 V24 engines, 2,600 hp Maximum speed: 265 mph Cruise speed: 165 mph Range: 4,200 mi Ceiling: 39,000 ft Rate of climb: 650 ft/min Wing loading: 35 lb/ft² Power/mass: 0.065 hp/lb

[RocketTCoyote]

The B-19 also mentioned in a Spike Jones tune and several times by Bugs Bunny. Also shown in an animated segment of Disney's "Victory Through Air Power."

[cobrachoppergirl]

God lord look at the size of the tires on that dinosaur. Was this plane relevant in retrospect considering the money spent on it?

[NVanWendy]

I get a smile out of the attitude toward landing gear back then: if it's twice as big as the previous plane, then find a wheel twice as big! We don't care if it's 8 feet tall! What do think we're going to do - put four wheels on each main strut?!

[jnichols3]

It is hard to imagine why they would scrap a one of a kind aircraft.

[moluvsage]

@jnichols3 The same thing happened when they scrapped the only existing  XF-5U FLYING PANCAKE.Seems they had no foresight.

[carlosmurphy4u]

Why the hell was a Englishman narrating this???

[binaway]

@carlosmurphy4u Probably from an old British newsreel to be shown throughout the old British Empire.

[deetjay1]

@carlosmurphy4u

A kind of "penis envy" that s uniquely British...LOL

[animalcorvair]

not made in china thank god

[raynus1]

It actually worked & served as a freighter until the late 1940's. Too bad they didn't have the capability to preserve it for a museum piece. All that's left is a wheel assembly.

[dorkf1sh]

@Rico8458

Germany lost the war for many reasons, of which the lack of a strategic bomber was but one. The Eastern Front is where they lost their ability to effectively wage war, but they lost their more due to poor planning, logistics, and interference from Berlin than a lack of the ability to beat the USSR. They had a small window of opportunity and failed to capitalize on it, and they weren't prepared for the Russian winter when the campaign dragged on too long. Too reliant on blitzkrieg.

[carmium]

It looks like you could have had a rousing game of ping-pong in the front office of that thing!

[kirkconway]

this thing was too tail heavy,

[kirkconway]

This thing was really somthing,

but then teetering from side to side on touchdown,,

it was totally unwieldy on landing and final approach,

Look's like it was hard to control,

[dopenhagen2009]

lol

imagine what the Me262 would make of this fat goose

[leesherman100]

A real 'BIG' deal for it's time. Crewmen could walk inside the wings for engine inspections during flight! On one particular flight during an engine insp. by flight personnel, a fuel hose became disconnected, spraying fuel everywhere. The crewman figured he was soon to be toast unless the flight engineer noticed a fuel pressure loss for that engine. The loss of fuel pressure was noted, and the engine shut off before the fuel caught fire. All in a days work!!.

[Ms11565]

as I understand it, the XB-19 project fizzled out when the USAAF accepted the B-17 (Boeing model 299). However, the B-19 as it became called, remained flying around for publicity (even Bugs Bunny at one point thought he was the B-19!) until the end of WWII. It was then scrapped.

[Rico8458]

you counter point is excellent. you are right. russia was too much for little germany

[Rico8458]

this is why usa won the war. germany did not produce these types of bombers and they lost.

[McLarenMercedes]

@Rico8458

Here's something for you which can be read in any good book about WW2 written by historians. It's a well known fact of WW2. 80 percent of all German casaulties were on the Eastern Front and it was there the mighy German wehrmacht was primarily beaten for all intents and purposes. So you can go on now ranting about bombers but you can even ask the Germans themselves and their historians were they lost most men and the war.

Read a book or two about WW2. And use your common sense.

[patsematary]

@Rico8458 Nazi Germans never believed in "strategic bombing " relying on medium bombers & fast tank forces. 

[PacManJulie]

none of that cissy folding undercarriage for this monster. Seem to be down on its back wheels early on, then they get pumped up. Was it some sort of Mexican Lo-rider plane LOL?

[ATSAT]

It seems to me that it would have made a good transatlantic passanger plane, or at least a good troop carrier if it had the range (kinda like Howard Hughes's H-4 Sprouce Goose prototype, but only smaller)...

[P51F86F4F15F22]

they could have used it for the atomic bomb or used it for coventional bombing in the pacific

[stringalongmike1953]

thanks for the video Bomberguy - the music is great too!

[canals22]

Two more engines would have been great !

[kinmanyuen]

watch it rock up and down liftin off and landing

[Streamliner009]

such a piece of aviation's history, scrapped.... what a pity

[afcweswarrior]

It was probably too damn heavy too fly. Back then they didn't use the same materials as they do now. Now they're going to use carbon fibres for some new big ass planes coming out.

[DEP717]

It may have never gone on to war duty but I wonder if Goering and Tojo would have crapped their pants if they saw this film.

[TrashWinston]

Visionary, mad man, excentric, loony, genius. You can use all these words to describe Howard Huhges. and I'll take any Pepsi challenge you can dish out. I know more about American, English, French, German Aerospace that you ever will.

[canals22]

@TrashWinston Tell me about the Leduc 022

[TrashWinston]

It Should be called, the XB-19 WORLDS BIGGEST MAIL PLANE! It never saw action or carried a payload. Yes i know that it was designed as a long distance bla bla bla bla bla bla. So get off your high horse before you reply, my grandfather worked on it.

[TV843]

What a beautiful airplane!

[thisisnev]

Er, Bomberguy - the troll's up to its old tricks again...

[thisisnev]

I'm moved by your coherent arguments, Annie. Perhaps if I watch The Aviator again, I'll become as well-informed as you. Unfortunately I can't hope to match your witty repartee.

[greenseaships]

@2:56- 3:06 I've always wondered what was happening here. Is it a center of gravity problem?

[chowder48]

probally ground plain.. the air under the wing is compressed under the weight, the escapes , causing a drop, then compresses, over and over..its scary as hell, most low wing aircraft are susceptible to it..

[Motoguzzi750]

I'm afraid Greenseas the B19 was a total sitting duck due to a lack of performance; for the war B17s and B24s would do the job far better, and later the B29, with its huge leap in performance over the B19 would show how it should be done. And in truth..the Mosquito..Canberra..F111 line was the way to go...

[greenseaships]

Can someone PLEASE tell me why we went through so much trouble to procure an extra-large bomber in WW2-even going so far as to commission the B-36- when we already had this thing flying before the war? Why wasn't it developed while Boeing had to start from scratch on the B-29. Meanwhile this thing just sits through the war only to be scrapped later. Does not compute.

[drbayrhum]

Because once an aircraft is built it is obsolete. The next generation is then designed from the lessons learned. The B-29 design began only five years later, and the B-36 one year after that.

[thisisnev]

Gee, you don't reckon it could it be because the only surviving footage is from a British newsreel, do you? Idiot.

Which, incidentally, casts a little doubt on the 'secret Army Air Corps project' spiel...!

[boogeyman450]

What is it with the damn annoying brit accent?

[ayrshoredotcom]

Makes a pleasant change to the many damn annoying Yank accents.

[ftuckerman]

Looks tail heavy.

[1954shadow]

Thank you for posting your great and informative videos, I enjoy every one of them.

[jonadam1975]

This was definatley the golden age of flight. Hard to believe, only several years before that, all planes were bi-wing , wooden framed beasts that look liked they could fall apart at any minute, We have such people like HOWARD HUGHES to thank for such a quick advancement in aero technology.

[thisisnev]

Howard Hughes? Really?

I think you'll find Fokker, Junkers and Boeing did more to bring in monoplanes than your millionaire playboy.

[jonadam1975]

it doesnt really matter what you think

[thisisnev]

OK, since you're being pedantic, let me rephrase (although it doesn't really matter what any of us think) ...

Fokker, Junkers and Boeing DID more than Howard Hughes to advance aero technology. Hughes was a playboy who wasted a small fortune of US government funds on two designs that barely flew; and while the Connie was a good design, it wasn't revolutionary and it wasn't Hughes who designed it.

He did make a decent film or two, though, I'll give him that.

[rampking1]

brings tears to my eyes when I think of all the beautiful piston-engined aircraft that were sent to Arizona to be scrapped. Especially the aircraft with multiple combat missions such as the B-17.

We were in such a damn hurry to down-grade our military after the war. We paid dearly for this in Korea in 1950!

[sketchyinc]

@rampking1 I feel the same way, btw, I live in Arizona not to far from the aircraft graveyard. It is such a shame that they did not have the foresight to save these WWII aircraft for support roles such as for auxilary and reserve forces, transport, tankers, etc.

[rampking1]

@sketchyinc

Off subect, but the next time you hear some cold war revisionist say the USA was 50% reponsible for the cold war,.remember these aircraft

After VJ day we disarmed so quickly, it was unbelievable!

It is a fact that we had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to defend Korea in 1950.

We were not a threat to anyone, including the USSR.

One of the greatest screw-ups after the war was scrapping the USS Enterprise, the only carrier to survive the war. Yea, it was beat up but who cares?

[myvwsRrusty]

@rampking1 You know THAT'S right!!!

[ENZO234258]

sad that its gone it would be awesome to see it fly through the air with its massive wings and engines but minus the bombs

[cdfe3388]

Even though there are bigger planes around today, the sheer SIZE of this beast is incredible! It's crazy to see that something that huge could get off the ground with radial engines in 1940 (albeit not entirely smoothly)! Today you expect something like that, but 60 years ago? Amazing.

[lasfsaf]

I loved the song

[spartanwarrior340]

that looks like a b-24 and a b-17 put together

[dcooke1989]

probably way to expensive for mass production. if produced though, it could have changed the way we look at world war 2 today.

[rrmfg]

this airplane should have been preserved for future generations to see. what short sighted idiot short changed us so uncle sam could have a couple bucks from the scrap man?

[Chuckjagermeister]

Lots of lift. I bet that thing could stay airborne below 60 knots. Combined with an aft CG and sensitive elevators and you have a monster.

[PelaoyFamoso]

Horrible landing. I was clearly not thought through very well.

[NoLongerFooled]

What a horrible landing! Looked like they almost didn't make it.

[elroto]

Christ, I would hate to have a crosswind on final with this beast! Just looking at the landing it appears to have overly sensitive elevators.

[nolifemerc]

looks like a large c47

[meccabumbleswan]

Looked unstable in pitch to me.What say you?

[InfiniteMushroom]

Wobbly takeoff and landing! Either the test pilot was exploring the pitch stability or the CG is deliberately tail-heavy to compensate for a full bomb load up front. That is not a good design approach if that was the case and is probably what doomed the B-19.

[nuclear944]

Yes, and it is weird because most of the abandoned experimental aircraft had problems with the engines (delivery, power, etc)..

This was the largest aircraft for a couple of years until the B-36 I think...

Great company, Douglas.

[RatPfink66]

Interesting that you had to go to the British Pathé for the footage...maybe it was classified in the USA but not over there? or more likely the US newsreels got thrown out. That's how we do things here :-/

[hoggdawn]

This would be a perfect party airplane to haul college fun-seekers to Cancun.  It is still around? College kids could fly and maintain it, and they'd pass the hat for fuel.

[evilintel]

Looks like it needed another set of engines. Definitely a design that should have been exploited further.

[Jollygreenslugg]

Can I ask what the music you've used is? It's catchy and a change from the usual Glenn Miller sound.

[SoloWingPixy]

My Great Grandfather was on the design team for this aircraft.

[peepeevagi]

Damn, that thing is huge!

[drafe007]

theirs a slim gaillard song called, "B-19".

[Bomberguy]

Thanks, I wish I knew that before I mixed this video!

[ediirwin]

But... it's kind of ugly, isn't it? You can see by its design that it wouldn't have been a great airplane. Just like the enormous Boeing plane that preceded the B-17.

[hellogoodbyetoyounow]

Omg!

[smurfswacker]

Excellent video! My dad saw the B-19 fly at March Field; he joked that when it approached the field you could see the tail long before you saw the rest of the plane.

[01thomasss]

Thanks B-G; I just love this classic airplane stuff!