@40390576 I hate south park i watch discovery channel, and i noticed you have an upper case "your" so assume your referring to my "ur", well my grammar has no direct link to my intelligence and and i apologize for my immature humour it happens on rare occasions
The last one claims a larger model could carry 4000 passengers. LOL! It would take like 8 hours to get all the passengers off the plane after it landed. It would have to be as big as a football field. You could crash it into a building,... and keep going!!!
@sallygo1234 One's called a "ifting body" The distinction is probably in the aspect ratio. The lower the aspect ratio the less efficient the lifting surface due to induced drag, the vortex that spins off the wing tips.
@conurelover Nothing wrong with being half or wholly German,those who seem most fixated on the idea that Nazi tech was so vastly superior to all others don't tend to be German anyway,but i agree its tedious to see these know nothings spouting of .
Can anyone explain to me how the "chanel wing" can fly...it looks aerodynamically upside down.....BTW BomberGuy...don't know how you got all these great clips..but thanks for sharing
i agree people complaining on YT about politics is retarded but, to suggest that you can't complain about a president unless you're capable of being president might need a little bit more thought... just saying
i tried to build a miniature model of one of these but the its so hard to fucking handle, so easy to crash these things, how many people died in the making of these videos?
where are the german flying saucers??^^ oh i forgot they are a secret..somehow toll today lol..its great to see that the uS- guys were allso creating similar stuff (love the flunder) :D
@23peteful German's didn't start designing flying wings till 1943, Jack Northrup had been designing flying wings since 1933. his XP-79 flying ram was a flying wing fighter designed to ram enemy aircraft it was to be the last line of defense if the Nazi's tried to invade America after the fall of Europe. it was cancelled after the Normandy invasion.
Stolen? No, that technology was bought with a heavy price, paid in full. The receipt can be found in Arlington National Cemetery, the Normandy American Cemetery, and enough others never found to fill another cemetery.
So, you're saying that American's, the Allies, and the rest of the civilized world would have been served better had America just disregarded the actions of the Axis and simply never joined the war, even when the war rolled over Washington? Explain, exactly what America should have done.
1. The Atlantic ocean couldn't save the Nazis from the US but would save the US from the Nazis? If the Nazi dream was realized, they would have controlled the entire world before the attempt at the America's would be attempted. Fascist Japan via Alaska and Fascist Germany via Canada and South America, they had no intension of stopping short.
2. Your values assessment between the reds and the nazis doesn't interest me. Each wanted global domination and to end our way of life here.
There is more than one type of invasion. Had the Americas been the only non-axis part of the globe, economic isolation and trade strangulation would have achieved the same thing.
The notion that a free America would simply be tolerated alone is absurd.
Apart from that, the same cold war would have begun, Cuba playing the same role. This time, with a truly global power, the end would be clear.
What? You accuse me of being Ad hominem before suggesting I have no wits?
That's definitional hypocrisy. I've spoken to you with respect and was utterly non-personal with you. I was on the verge of taking an interest in your last comment before you shot it to bits with that. It's almost as if you sabotaged it to make sure it ended. Okay then, it's over.
To everyone else, my response to the allies "stealing" german technology stands, this digression is dead.
Nothing would have happened fast, but controlling the remainder of the world, without opposition from anyone but the Americas, it's childishly naive to think we could think the Atlantic and Pacific would keep them at bay indefinitely, or that the likes of Hitler's Nazi world would shrug us off as not worth the effort.
A fear and hatred of all things external? A desire for control of everything around it? Re-education of the masses to think "Allied" forces were there to rape their women and children...that it was better to commit suicide than to surrender or accept help from them?
Japan was fascist...hardcore fascist...and unfortunately for both them and the allies of the time, a lot of the populace was set to fight for this fascism down to the last man, woman, and CHILD.
Hmmmm...let me get this straight...the French stole it from DaVinci, and the Germans stole it from the French, then the Americans stole it from the Germans, and perfected it. Yup, that sounds about right.
A problem with these planes was you couldn't produce a new version to carry more passengers. With say a 747 Boeing lengthened or shortened the fuselage to produce a new version for a different market. With a flying wing you have to design a completely new aircraft to carry more or less payload. An expensive option compared to turning the 707 fuselage into the 727 and then the 737 by just shortening it. Airbus did the same with the A300 to produce the A310.
a plane without wings is stupid to what and end would something like this would be usefull. The craft would fly sure but would be inneficient and unstable. whats the point?
@lordlozz1 in hindsight i guess you could. but back then could you say the same thing.. considering that flight was pretty new back then all together so they had very little understanding of its commercial success and what else could be done.
1 because i like the freedom and overpower of flying. i dream about my body being able to fly, those are the nicest i ever have.
2. I love to continually improve my machines and design. I love to beat my old creation (and others) and learn that from that experience. I love to create a hypothesis, test it, and learn. cont.
cont. Satisfying results could be Higher engine torque, better aerodynamics, less drag/more lift more stable, more reliable. I built LPE (lego pneumatic engines) but now i'm kinda inactive. I dream of building my own flying machine, probably using Lego Technic components
3 I get the same satisfaction when i create a good engine as when artists creates good art. Aircrafts can be so simple and so complex. cont
We can realise our full-potential by trying out our invoation and creativity in the process of design new aeroplane. Ultimately, we can have a big satification for ourselves. What do you think?
That sounds right, i agree with that.. Or i can have a very big dissapointment if all the hard work was in vain. I will always strive after making the best of my interests. I get happy when i acomplish my goal. But my happyness of having created for example my ship did not last long. Because when i had made my ship, i just wanted to build an even bigger and better model. I always want to make it better, and i will never get fully satisfied for longer than a short moment. cont.
cont. Things can always be better, with no exception, there is no limit. There is no "perfect" machine or airplane. The Boeing 787 dreamliner will be nothing more than a random old plane in the future or when a better airliner is developed
cont. You have to be creative and innovative to build a good flying machine or any other piece of technic. One of the biggest innovative steps was going from triplanes and biplanes to monoplanes. Just cutting the unnessecary wings away.
@BartowWing The wingless planes are known as a 'lifting body'. NASA did a good deal of experimentation with them in the 50's. The fusilage is shaped in such a way, that it give sthe same lift as a traditional wing. I don't know why they weren't continued on with, as far as a viable project, but there must have been a reason... Take care.
The Custer Channelwing had lots of investors - colonel Custer was a good PR man - but the designs were heavy and carried very little cargo compared to more normal planes using similar engines. And the STOL capacity would not be there in an engine-out situation!
The second design was clever, however the whole thing relies on the function of its engines. If it looses one engine the thing will not fly, unlike a typical twin engine airplane that has the ability to fly with only one engine. It takes off quickly due to its power to weight ratio not its aerodynamic design.
what a joke, all of these rely on lift from the fusalage. except for the one with the hemicircles with the engines in them. that uses a combination of the lift from the half circles and the thrust from the engines (plus those winglets).
A joke? These men were aviation pioneers who took risks you could only imagine. Stop looking back with a critical eye and give them the credit they deserve.
I'm not criticizing the pilots, I am one. I am saying that they are lying by saying it can fly without wings. true yes, but they get the lfit from the fusalage instead of wings.
The whole point was to try to get lift without wings. They did it, so what makes them a joke if they succeeded in flying without wings. How else would they get lift if not from the fuselage? Magic?
Ya but if you changed the name from pepperoni pizza to ham pizza, that would be okay cos that's the image and the pizza you're trying to convey, and that's why they built the planes with no wings cos they used the fuselage instead of wings. Hey maybe no wings saves on parking space?
No wings = reduced hangarage costs, reduced manufacturing cost, lower weight, easier movement in airports etc. You gotta remember this was a time of innovation. Someone probably said "why wings, whats wrong with wheels" or even "why wheels, whats wrong with legs" at some point in the past, we'd be nowhere without innovation, even if some of the ideas come to naught. Even so, lifting body technology allows modern fighters to have much smaller wing area than they would otherwise need
yes, they do, because they go fast enough to use the body effeciently, these things are slow, not to mention ineffecient. the wing is a tried and true design, why go somewhere else (besides the helicopter).
The only thing that scares me with the Custer Channel Wings, is a engine failure of one of those two wings, while you're flying in the 'custer effect' means you flip over and crash.
Yeah but in 1949 that was a nice chunk of change, a good job back then payed 50 or 60 us dollars a week and as he said 1/2 the cost of a small car of the time.
BomberGuy: Thank you for ALL your video's. I especially like this one, and hoped to e-mail you to pay you for a copy. Friend invitation sent to you, I hope you will reciprocate.
With regard to the Flying Flounder, you will notice it has a high angle of attack with power on - it has lift, but I would be curious to see 'straight and level flight'.
Credit in this newsreel and elsewhere goes to 'Cheston Eshelman' yet the narrator clearly says 'inventor Nelson Edwards' @ 33 seconds.
It's true to say there was no television, but cinema was very popular during the war and attracted large audiences. Before the film they would show news reels, short reports on the war. So in fact it could very well be from that era.
Bush has had his pros and cons and so has Obama, but people shouldn't be complaining about these problems if their sitting at home complaining on youtube. it's not good to say hes doing a bad job if you can't do it yourself. besides this video has nothing to do with Obama or Bush so stop complaining and watch the video!
if a plane is truely wingless i wont take off it would just be a really fast bullet car thing. and the person who built the last aircraft on the vid must have been drunk when he said that the piece of shit he calls a plane can carry 4000 passengers not even the Airbus A380 can carry that many passengers and thats the biggest passenger plane so far
c'mon dude its a secret aricraft testin base for new craft. The f117 was kept a secret till there were too many and they decided to unveil to the people....those space watchers are wastins their time and they could get arrested if they tresspass or worse shot..and for good reason too our national defence depend on these secret projects like the brand new raptor and lightning 2
Alien flying saurcers may not exist but there is plenty of documentation that surgests that we have invented atleast one. Obama may or may have already released classified technical information reguarding anti-gravity.
Found the channel wing which still haa potential
vickie1701 1 month ago
the B-58 has no tail wings, sorry
fiverats1 3 months ago
@40390576 I hate south park i watch discovery channel, and i noticed you have an upper case "your" so assume your referring to my "ur", well my grammar has no direct link to my intelligence and and i apologize for my immature humour it happens on rare occasions
greatwhitenorth112 3 months ago
The last one claims a larger model could carry 4000 passengers. LOL! It would take like 8 hours to get all the passengers off the plane after it landed. It would have to be as big as a football field. You could crash it into a building,... and keep going!!!
archon808 5 months ago
Flying Flounder must have had a real torque problem w/ such short "wings". Not much roll control leverage. Actually, it's a blended wing body.
niflap 5 months ago
No wings huh? Sure. Kind of like saying a short stubby fat person has no legs.
squizzoo 6 months ago
flying flounder is the enemy alien in independence day haha
ruinzsican 6 months ago
lol such a load of bullshit, you can't get lift without a wing of some form, excluding VTOLs
777doom 6 months ago
no propellor or engine
datzfast 6 months ago
we should have wingless planes at this day and age
LMLR187 6 months ago
Shulda shown the B-58
fiverats1 7 months ago
@fiverats1 The B-58 Indeed has wings.
cooljoe494 7 months ago
The Russians were working on supersonic delta flying wings very early
flyeurodiesel 8 months ago
What's the difference between a wingless plane and a flying wing?
sallygo1234 9 months ago
@sallygo1234 UR MOM
greatwhitenorth112 8 months ago
@sallygo1234 One's called a "ifting body" The distinction is probably in the aspect ratio. The lower the aspect ratio the less efficient the lifting surface due to induced drag, the vortex that spins off the wing tips.
BrokenAeroVT 8 months ago
@sallygo1234 L---ifting...sorry bout that.
BrokenAeroVT 8 months ago
...Hears a Who, down in Whoville?
HypeBeGone 9 months ago
Star was Air craft?
mtvprankes 9 months ago
Horten Brothers were designing and testing flying wings long before Northrop. Horten [1933] Ho 1.
Northrop used Horten data for his bigger wings after the war. The Horten brothers were The leaders in flying wing design.
aviate1138 9 months ago
No feeback on the helicopter? No?
Trollz0Be0Trollin 10 months ago
No visible wing as you see on other planes but the body indeed acts as a wing and cross section is like an airfoil.
Indianmalujl 11 months ago
@Indianmalujl airfoil.....i'll bet that throws most people off track....but you are exactly right
paulfultz41 9 months ago
LOL Godwin's Law never had a change on this!
cochranexyz 11 months ago
@conurelover Nothing wrong with being half or wholly German,those who seem most fixated on the idea that Nazi tech was so vastly superior to all others don't tend to be German anyway,but i agree its tedious to see these know nothings spouting of .
iroscoe 1 year ago
8 people have a wingspan of more than 20 feet.
thbs35 1 year ago
wingless??? it is a wing! xD
evrolicious 1 year ago
Can anyone explain to me how the "chanel wing" can fly...it looks aerodynamically upside down.....BTW BomberGuy...don't know how you got all these great clips..but thanks for sharing
2c1496 1 year ago
plane IS a wing, lol
urmo345 1 year ago
4000 people? 60 years on and we are still carying on 400 tops. now..hows lying to who?
0Zolrender0 1 year ago
at last! a plane that fits in your garage!
moogug 1 year ago
a UFO!
moogug 1 year ago
Its not a wingless airplane, lol. Instead its a wing-only type aircraft.
PHeMoX 1 year ago
hey, i've seen this crashed on fallout3 or newvegas cant remember, cant believe its real im such an ignorant
Headbngr666 1 year ago
i agree people complaining on YT about politics is retarded but, to suggest that you can't complain about a president unless you're capable of being president might need a little bit more thought... just saying
matchestheclown 1 year ago
lol its funny to look at the pasts idea of the future anyway i gotta replace a vaccuum tube in my computer :D
OkamiThunder 1 year ago
i tried to build a miniature model of one of these but the its so hard to fucking handle, so easy to crash these things, how many people died in the making of these videos?
sweet58441 1 year ago
Sure looks like Tim Horton's was more successful than his gran'pa ;-)
Media4TheMind 1 year ago
they all have wings. all flying things except rocket have wins
MrJoefung007007 1 year ago
I've seen a custer channel wing in a museum...NA&S iirc.
GrigoriZhukov 1 year ago
where are the german flying saucers??^^ oh i forgot they are a secret..somehow toll today lol..its great to see that the uS- guys were allso creating similar stuff (love the flunder) :D
chris1980x 1 year ago
I would LOVE to fly all of these...
3hardrider7 1 year ago
probably doesn't matter to many other people but at :042 you can see the inventor is wearing a CAP uniform.
xKCBEx 1 year ago
@xKCBEx CAP? An acronym for...
Bobajobimus 1 year ago
@xKCBEx Holy crap. You're right
ysflightman 1 year ago
These are lifting bodies.
dixievfd55 1 year ago
it has got a wing tho ... itself ... it is a wing in its own right
RotorHead2652 1 year ago
The A wing
commander187 1 year ago
so watever happened to these things???
number1spielbergfan 1 year ago
@number1spielbergfan The aliens stole them and the plans. And they're gonna invade us next week in them
moogug 1 year ago
@moogug nah, the government confinscated 'em and plans world domination by using them to invade countries
number1spielbergfan 1 year ago
but u notice that all of the "wingless" planes are all basicaly flying wings
cprich22 1 year ago 15
@cprich22 wingless ?
im german they are called " nur-flügel-flugzeuge " , what means : only-wing-plane
destructOzap 6 months ago
@destructOzap yeh, a flying wing, like the b-2 stelth bomber
cprich22 6 months ago
@cprich22 This is clearly a lifting body, not a flying wing
archon808 5 months ago 3
@archon808 fine a fuckin massive flying areofoil
cprich22 5 months ago
The Magazine cover at the end says "Folks in suits and pearls go on a FIGHT in their Horton."
LOL, no doubt they were dressed nicely in case they were shot down over Korea.
verbusen 1 year ago
lol its not wingless.
All the designs shown here use the basic principles of lift in wingdesign
kinmanyuen 1 year ago 3
stolen from germans, like all...
23peteful 1 year ago 28
@23peteful naw not all just the germans have ideas just some we perfect
1916251442899 1 year ago
@23peteful
Yep.i mean the same! In example the AS-6 from Mr.Sack
maxiei 1 year ago
@23peteful
considering the first powered flight was done in America, I'd say the Germans owe us.
Thuringen 1 year ago
@Thuringen lol
23peteful 1 year ago
@23peteful
Actually, stolen from early soviet designs from before the 1920s
adrastea99 1 year ago
@23peteful German's didn't start designing flying wings till 1943, Jack Northrup had been designing flying wings since 1933. his XP-79 flying ram was a flying wing fighter designed to ram enemy aircraft it was to be the last line of defense if the Nazi's tried to invade America after the fall of Europe. it was cancelled after the Normandy invasion.
kdraper2007 11 months ago
@23peteful How so ?
Auggie56 9 months ago
@23peteful
Stolen? No, that technology was bought with a heavy price, paid in full. The receipt can be found in Arlington National Cemetery, the Normandy American Cemetery, and enough others never found to fill another cemetery.
TheJediCharles 7 months ago 3
@TheJediCharles yep, paid for in blood money so the suits in Washington can get there new toys.
zebadee277 7 months ago
@zebadee277
So, you're saying that American's, the Allies, and the rest of the civilized world would have been served better had America just disregarded the actions of the Axis and simply never joined the war, even when the war rolled over Washington? Explain, exactly what America should have done.
This, I have to hear.
TheJediCharles 7 months ago 5
Comment removed
hazeleyes1911a1 7 months ago
@hazeleyes
1. The Atlantic ocean couldn't save the Nazis from the US but would save the US from the Nazis? If the Nazi dream was realized, they would have controlled the entire world before the attempt at the America's would be attempted. Fascist Japan via Alaska and Fascist Germany via Canada and South America, they had no intension of stopping short.
2. Your values assessment between the reds and the nazis doesn't interest me. Each wanted global domination and to end our way of life here.
TheJediCharles 7 months ago 2
Comment removed
hazeleyes1911a1 7 months ago
@hazeleyes1911a1
There is no equivalent?
There is more than one type of invasion. Had the Americas been the only non-axis part of the globe, economic isolation and trade strangulation would have achieved the same thing.
The notion that a free America would simply be tolerated alone is absurd.
Apart from that, the same cold war would have begun, Cuba playing the same role. This time, with a truly global power, the end would be clear.
TheJediCharles 6 months ago
Comment removed
hazeleyes1911a1 6 months ago
@hazeleyes1911a1
What? You accuse me of being Ad hominem before suggesting I have no wits?
That's definitional hypocrisy. I've spoken to you with respect and was utterly non-personal with you. I was on the verge of taking an interest in your last comment before you shot it to bits with that. It's almost as if you sabotaged it to make sure it ended. Okay then, it's over.
To everyone else, my response to the allies "stealing" german technology stands, this digression is dead.
TheJediCharles 6 months ago
@hazeleyes1911a1
Nothing would have happened fast, but controlling the remainder of the world, without opposition from anyone but the Americas, it's childishly naive to think we could think the Atlantic and Pacific would keep them at bay indefinitely, or that the likes of Hitler's Nazi world would shrug us off as not worth the effort.
Give me a break.
TheJediCharles 6 months ago
Comment removed
hazeleyes1911a1 6 months ago
Comment removed
hazeleyes1911a1 7 months ago
@hazeleyes1911a1
A fear and hatred of all things external? A desire for control of everything around it? Re-education of the masses to think "Allied" forces were there to rape their women and children...that it was better to commit suicide than to surrender or accept help from them?
Japan was fascist...hardcore fascist...and unfortunately for both them and the allies of the time, a lot of the populace was set to fight for this fascism down to the last man, woman, and CHILD.
FHCTech 6 months ago
@FHCTech
Now, that being said....both of you keep your fingers away from your keyboards and shut up.
This is a video about airplanes, not about your "theories" of World War 2.
FHCTech 6 months ago
Comment removed
hazeleyes1911a1 6 months ago
Comment removed
hazeleyes1911a1 6 months ago
@23peteful
Hmmmm...let me get this straight...the French stole it from DaVinci, and the Germans stole it from the French, then the Americans stole it from the Germans, and perfected it. Yup, that sounds about right.
stonethemason 6 months ago
1 is a wing
baileythedudeman57 1 year ago
A problem with these planes was you couldn't produce a new version to carry more passengers. With say a 747 Boeing lengthened or shortened the fuselage to produce a new version for a different market. With a flying wing you have to design a completely new aircraft to carry more or less payload. An expensive option compared to turning the 707 fuselage into the 727 and then the 737 by just shortening it. Airbus did the same with the A300 to produce the A310.
binaway 1 year ago
a plane without wings is stupid to what and end would something like this would be usefull. The craft would fly sure but would be inneficient and unstable. whats the point?
lordlozz1 1 year ago
@lordlozz1 i guess the point is to try it out?
especially back then when there were no computer models.
otherwise we would all still be in Europe thinking the world is flat
big10inchs 1 year ago
@big10inchs I disagree, its pointless. I could tell you it could be done, i could also tell you that it would never be a comercial success.
lordlozz1 1 year ago
@lordlozz1 in hindsight i guess you could. but back then could you say the same thing.. considering that flight was pretty new back then all together so they had very little understanding of its commercial success and what else could be done.
big10inchs 1 year ago
Dear All,
I have some questions about psychology:
(1) Why do we love flying?
(2) Why do we enjoy to design and to build new aeroplanes?
(3) Why does aerosapce development is a representation of creativity and innovation?
THANK YOU IN ADVANCE for your creative ideas and brainstorm!!! :)
applesweeter 1 year ago
1 because i like the freedom and overpower of flying. i dream about my body being able to fly, those are the nicest i ever have.
2. I love to continually improve my machines and design. I love to beat my old creation (and others) and learn that from that experience. I love to create a hypothesis, test it, and learn. cont.
ATITANIC1992 1 year ago
cont. Satisfying results could be Higher engine torque, better aerodynamics, less drag/more lift more stable, more reliable. I built LPE (lego pneumatic engines) but now i'm kinda inactive. I dream of building my own flying machine, probably using Lego Technic components
3 I get the same satisfaction when i create a good engine as when artists creates good art. Aircrafts can be so simple and so complex. cont
ATITANIC1992 1 year ago
To: ATITANIC1992
Yes, I agree.
We can realise our full-potential by trying out our invoation and creativity in the process of design new aeroplane. Ultimately, we can have a big satification for ourselves. What do you think?
applesweeter 1 year ago
@applesweeter
That sounds right, i agree with that.. Or i can have a very big dissapointment if all the hard work was in vain. I will always strive after making the best of my interests. I get happy when i acomplish my goal. But my happyness of having created for example my ship did not last long. Because when i had made my ship, i just wanted to build an even bigger and better model. I always want to make it better, and i will never get fully satisfied for longer than a short moment. cont.
ATITANIC1992 1 year ago
cont. Things can always be better, with no exception, there is no limit. There is no "perfect" machine or airplane. The Boeing 787 dreamliner will be nothing more than a random old plane in the future or when a better airliner is developed
ATITANIC1992 1 year ago
cont. You have to be creative and innovative to build a good flying machine or any other piece of technic. One of the biggest innovative steps was going from triplanes and biplanes to monoplanes. Just cutting the unnessecary wings away.
ATITANIC1992 1 year ago
its not wingless , the whole plane is a wing
Allexxx96Reloaded 1 year ago
some have wings
fairtony 1 year ago
Do you have any flight specs on this? HP? Stall? Cruise?
BeulahLips 1 year ago
How are these aircraft wingless exactly? At least the Horton says "normal" wings.
BartowWing 2 years ago
@BartowWing The wingless planes are known as a 'lifting body'. NASA did a good deal of experimentation with them in the 50's. The fusilage is shaped in such a way, that it give sthe same lift as a traditional wing. I don't know why they weren't continued on with, as far as a viable project, but there must have been a reason... Take care.
criticalmass181 1 year ago
If that channel wing plane had such great STOL capabilities why dont we use the design today?
Snipe4261 2 years ago
4000 passengers...and a child......quite...ingenious...?!
NewWorldCorp 2 years ago 2
giant flying cockroach...
Germany enginering better!
nefron1 2 years ago
The Custer Channelwing had lots of investors - colonel Custer was a good PR man - but the designs were heavy and carried very little cargo compared to more normal planes using similar engines. And the STOL capacity would not be there in an engine-out situation!
Tord55 2 years ago
just not that inventive these days
spazoflondon 2 years ago 3
i think they got the idea of the "steath bomber" from this!
americansamoan08 2 years ago
The Flying Flounder was designed by Cheston Lee Eshelman (on the left in the shot of the 2 men). He held patents on 2 such flying wings.
captnav135 2 years ago
As a kid, I had a book on unusual aircraft in the 50's and almost all the airplanes featured here were pictured in it!
Thanks for posting this vid.
TCSC47 2 years ago
Some of these planes reminds me of the plane I knew called "Flying Pancake" but it was experimental.
MingmingHill400 2 years ago
I see no Soviet stuff here...
adrastea99 2 years ago 2
The second design was clever, however the whole thing relies on the function of its engines. If it looses one engine the thing will not fly, unlike a typical twin engine airplane that has the ability to fly with only one engine. It takes off quickly due to its power to weight ratio not its aerodynamic design.
marick626 2 years ago
Try looking up the Burnelli Lifting Fuselage, it has wings but is better than the tube fuselages we use today.
ihateforigners 2 years ago
holy God, the first looks like a bootlegged ufo, and the last like a flying machine of star wars LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
calito0010 2 years ago
It's a misnomer to say they didn't have "wings" when in fact their lifting bodies were "wings"
patrickwinslow 2 years ago 3
yeah man they all have the shape of a wing. these fools think wings are just long skinny boards
cloroxbeast 2 years ago
Thoose are wings just smaller. I mean what makes it go up? The wings on the side...
anttonoo 2 years ago
I would like to fly the "Flying Flounder" for real.
SixsevenBravo 2 years ago 3
4,000 passengers? lol
MDisaster 2 years ago 57
@MDisaster its not impossible (anything is possible if you build it big enogh)
marcuspinson 1 year ago
Crazy ideas but great work :)
Baronof92 2 years ago
they would look like a UFOs from the ground
shortyjoe220 2 years ago
what a joke, all of these rely on lift from the fusalage. except for the one with the hemicircles with the engines in them. that uses a combination of the lift from the half circles and the thrust from the engines (plus those winglets).
flyboy8492 2 years ago
A joke? These men were aviation pioneers who took risks you could only imagine. Stop looking back with a critical eye and give them the credit they deserve.
akytilop 2 years ago 2
I'm not criticizing the pilots, I am one. I am saying that they are lying by saying it can fly without wings. true yes, but they get the lfit from the fusalage instead of wings.
flyboy8492 2 years ago
The whole point was to try to get lift without wings. They did it, so what makes them a joke if they succeeded in flying without wings. How else would they get lift if not from the fuselage? Magic?
dunti21 2 years ago 2
dude, the fuselage is the wing with these, what's the point then? just use wings, these designs are pointless and just make flying more difficult.
it would be like me giving you a pepperoni pizza, but with ham slices instead of sliced pepperoni.
they just substituted the fuselage for the wings, it's pointless. it probably hogs more fuel too.
flyboy8492 2 years ago
Ya but if you changed the name from pepperoni pizza to ham pizza, that would be okay cos that's the image and the pizza you're trying to convey, and that's why they built the planes with no wings cos they used the fuselage instead of wings. Hey maybe no wings saves on parking space?
dunti21 2 years ago 3
and makes up for it in fuel costs.
flyboy8492 2 years ago
So everybody's happy ;) ANyway the time these things were being designed fuel was dirt cheap...
dunti21 2 years ago 3
No wings = reduced hangarage costs, reduced manufacturing cost, lower weight, easier movement in airports etc. You gotta remember this was a time of innovation. Someone probably said "why wings, whats wrong with wheels" or even "why wheels, whats wrong with legs" at some point in the past, we'd be nowhere without innovation, even if some of the ideas come to naught. Even so, lifting body technology allows modern fighters to have much smaller wing area than they would otherwise need
fancyflier 2 years ago 2
yes, they do, because they go fast enough to use the body effeciently, these things are slow, not to mention ineffecient. the wing is a tried and true design, why go somewhere else (besides the helicopter).
flyboy8492 2 years ago
The Horton wingless seems an anticipation of the Russian Ekip.
DChatc 2 years ago
The only thing that scares me with the Custer Channel Wings, is a engine failure of one of those two wings, while you're flying in the 'custer effect' means you flip over and crash.
TurbineDogSevenFour 2 years ago
so cool almost like UFOs
TerrbleTrioHerb 2 years ago
ya what a sles job do you see them today? NO
James1toknow 2 years ago
A shame these interesting aircraft were never produced. Then again, I can't imagine it's -easy- flying a wingless airplane.
17589 2 years ago
4000 passengers at a time? Sure... if you could find a runway that big. :/
randommagnum 2 years ago
Well, I'm sure nobody would mind if we flattened France and paved it over...
Joke!
GMuzicc 2 years ago
$200brit pounds each?! my mountian bike cost more then 2 of those !!!
crabtrap 2 years ago
Yeah but in 1949 that was a nice chunk of change, a good job back then payed 50 or 60 us dollars a week and as he said 1/2 the cost of a small car of the time.
candr 2 years ago
A plane for the cost of a small car? That's actually kind of cheap... A cheap car now is like... 13k and a brand new Cessna is almost 100k!
peepeevagi 2 years ago
at 1.31
now 2009 V22 is still not flying, right
marktimmer2212 2 years ago
That first plane has gotta be an unstable platform. I bet it would oscillate like crazy under the wrong conditions.
vwguyaz87 2 years ago
that thing looks like a cheap frizbee from LIDL
Al3xan6er 2 years ago
Jee Bee flying wonder belong to this great videos.
digitalbaba1960 2 years ago
i would like it see it do a spin and reover
S0M0NE45 2 years ago
I appreciate all of Bomberguy's videos.
I'd like to know what Obama and Bush have to do with these historical videos.
wingnutwally 2 years ago
BomberGuy: Thank you for ALL your video's. I especially like this one, and hoped to e-mail you to pay you for a copy. Friend invitation sent to you, I hope you will reciprocate.
With regard to the Flying Flounder, you will notice it has a high angle of attack with power on - it has lift, but I would be curious to see 'straight and level flight'.
Credit in this newsreel and elsewhere goes to 'Cheston Eshelman' yet the narrator clearly says 'inventor Nelson Edwards' @ 33 seconds.
CI9TK 2 years ago
Correct. Cheston Lee Eshelman (my father in law) did design the plane, and a second experimental aircraft.
captnav135 2 years ago
the bit at the beggining cant be from england, as there was not tv over the war.
jacksinclaircool 2 years ago
not 1942 i mean, 46 more like.
jacksinclaircool 2 years ago
It's true to say there was no television, but cinema was very popular during the war and attracted large audiences. Before the film they would show news reels, short reports on the war. So in fact it could very well be from that era.
TomosHarris 2 years ago 2
great! The UFO!!!! area 51? wink
ziofagio 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
wooooooo obaama
mariolover766 2 years ago
Obama is a liar, and breaking most of his campaign "promises" already.
agentc73 2 years ago 3
lets see you try to clean up eight years of shit
contractki11er 2 years ago 3
Yeah right
No matter what Obama does that hurt the economy you will blame everything on Bush till Obamas last day in office. Its never the black mans fault .
johnnecron 2 years ago
Bush has had his pros and cons and so has Obama, but people shouldn't be complaining about these problems if their sitting at home complaining on youtube. it's not good to say hes doing a bad job if you can't do it yourself. besides this video has nothing to do with Obama or Bush so stop complaining and watch the video!
contractki11er 2 years ago 14
@contractki11er LOL, I watch old newsreel's to escape politics today, and I can't get away from it!
verbusen 1 year ago
@verbusen Lol, politics come up in the most inconveinet places, even videos that don't involve politics.
contractki11er 1 year ago
More like 50 years of shit if you ask me
dmavs1892 2 years ago
I gotta say, i'm surprised i've never seen this plane anywhere.
BeretCyclist 2 years ago
1:39 looks like flying eyeglasses. The first plane looks like a flying coat.
thibaulthalpern 2 years ago
It is most asthonishing that these planes have been created so many years ago and still so few can take off from their back garden.
Larsusek 2 years ago
if a plane is truely wingless i wont take off it would just be a really fast bullet car thing. and the person who built the last aircraft on the vid must have been drunk when he said that the piece of shit he calls a plane can carry 4000 passengers not even the Airbus A380 can carry that many passengers and thats the biggest passenger plane so far
castingsinkers 2 years ago
wingless plane to carry 4000 passengers at a time .lol
PatrykTHEplayerS 2 years ago 2
I know! 4,000 passengers? To where? If they could actually make that plane, less than 10% of it will be filled at a time.
thibaulthalpern 2 years ago 2
to the moon silly :)
weaselbread 2 years ago
if you were smart you'd know the whole aircraft IS A WING;therefore, not wingless
VancouverCanucksRock 2 years ago 4
well said, the concepts called a 'Lifting body' meaning the shape creates lift...
17sqnpro 2 years ago
Love that music
cruddiestcrudever 2 years ago
lmao the ending said they could build a wingless plane to carry 4000 passengers at a time
PLATINUMPOLAK 2 years ago 2
lol a ufo and those nuts keep saying the gov is hiding aliens and ufos in area 51,bull its aircraft like these butt modern and stealth.
phonix032 3 years ago
Just you wait.
teft 2 years ago
c'mon dude its a secret aricraft testin base for new craft. The f117 was kept a secret till there were too many and they decided to unveil to the people....those space watchers are wastins their time and they could get arrested if they tresspass or worse shot..and for good reason too our national defence depend on these secret projects like the brand new raptor and lightning 2
phonix032 2 years ago
Alien flying saurcers may not exist but there is plenty of documentation that surgests that we have invented atleast one. Obama may or may have already released classified technical information reguarding anti-gravity.
ssssroryssss2 2 years ago
the last one was inspiration for the air hogs storm launcher. all of the planes shown have airfoils.
ponchoyo 3 years ago
piston powered lifting body design
trav1971 3 years ago