Brief synopsis's on combat aircraft from World War 2 to the Modern-(ish) Day that any fan of aviation, old and new, can enjoy!
DISCLAIMER: I am not a historian, I am a *enthusiest* of history regarding combat aviation. So if I get some detail wrong or date incorrect, this is most likely why. My sources are somewhat limited (as great as the internet is) as is my time (since I am a full time college student).
A bit on the FAA {Fleet Air Arm} ,use of the WILDCAT {MARTLET. The pilots who flew it ,were almost gleefull, in it's capabilities! That bird;as did other RADIAL powered aircraft;saved many SCORES of U.K pilots! It's ability to take hits,that would have doomed ANY INLINE powered aircraft;was the reason. Most any hit,in the cooling system of an inline;was going to be fatal;sooner;or VERY sooner! The same sort of damage to the MARTLET,was often UNKNOWN to the pilot;until they hit the carrier deck.its one thing to lose coolant and pancake on land;but QUITE another;when home is a carrier ;hundereds of miles offshore! Ditching in the murder cold water of the NORTH ATLANTIC;or NORTH SEA ;was most often a death sentence.Hence the joy of these FLEET pilots,when they could make carrier landings;rather than being lost in the ditching!{ or at least ditch,NEAR the carrier} . Also;the FIREPWER and TOUGHNESS of this bird ;was a nasty surprise to the LUFTWAFFE! They ;for some strange reason;had'nt been given the lowdown on it from their eastern allies! {Japanese}, KInda rude ;what?considering they had been getting the crap shot outta them ,by the US NAVY and MARINES;during MIDWAY and GUADALCANAL operations! The Brits had a lovely time showing the 109s what that bird could do! Later ;of course, more combat heavy types were used;HELLCAT CORSAIR et al. However;the MARTLET/WILDCAT as stated in the presentation;were,NEVER out of production! A winner ;rarely would be!
@@brealistic3542 Actually, no. From the American Air Museum: "October 1943 turned out to be the worst loss rate for 8th Air Force for the entire war. 2,145 B-17s and 303 B-24s had been dispatched on missions. 163 B-17s had been lost (loss rate 7.5991%) and 9 B-24s were lost (loss rate 2.9703%)." That was the _worst_ month.
The Hurricane had a 600 mile range as opposed to the 400 miles for the Spitfires and 109s but at the cost of an additional tank in the fuselage which was a fire risk to the pilot.
Note that the Finns flew an early version nearly a ton lighter than the later models flown by the USN and USMC. The Finnish climate also made things easier for a powerplant with a reputation for overheating.
My late father ❤ flew both the Spitfire Mk V plus the Spitfire Mk V111 in the SW Pacific RAAF- Morotai, Tarakan, Balikpapan, etc. MISS U DAD. Lest we forget.
The Japanese Military relied on surprise and hope. When that didn't work, they ran out of talented pilots. At that point the capability of the plane did not matter. Economically, they really overstepped.
Unlike the US and other Allies, neither the Japanese nor Germans practiced rotating their more experienced pilots out of combat to training new pilots in the best tactics. They just fought until they died or were medically unfit to fight any more.
Churchill "Our most vital need is therefore the delivery at the earliest possible date of the largest possible number of Curtiss P-40 fighters." page 86 The Burning Blue Addison and Crang
Fairly nice summary in 5 minutes. Perhaps mention that by 1942, the Allison versions were were being transitioned to fighter bombers as the P-40F and other newer fighters gave them top cover in Africa. By 1944 in Italy, the P-40N was known to carry 2000 lb of bombs.
I love that portrait of HAP Arnold. If you look below his ribbons you will see another badge. That is the early US Army "Military Aviator" Badge. Awarded in 1911! He was one of the first 3 young officers to qualify as pilots, under the tutelage of the Wright brothers at their school in Dayton... Aircraft at THAT time being part of the Signal Corps as they were seen as communication devices...
The P47 was produced in larger numbers than any other US fighter. It was the P47 that broke the back of the Luftwaffe. For ground support in Korea the P47 would have been the better choice. Operational cost over pilot safety was the deciding factor.
Never understood why such an “advanced” design would persist with a built-up fuselage behind the cockpit instead of having a bubble canopy. Also why the cockpit was placed so far back. It seems the designers were intent on blocking the pilot’s view in both forward and rear directions.
Canopy visibility wasn't greatly understood as a design fact until little after mid-war point, with the mass adoption of bubble canopies to many deigns (P-51D, P-47M, later Spitfires, Typhoon and Tempest) Or redesigns of pre-existing canopies (such as the Malcolm Hood for the P-51Cs and Bs). The reason why they didn't adopt a bubble canopy out of the gate is, well. . .because they didn't exist yet when the Corsair was first designed, the technology to allow their creation wouldn't really exist till mid war. Visibility out of USN aircraft has always been a bit iffy, especially in the rear view. As for why, I don't know to be honest. Later Corsairs did adopt a blown style canopy that increased visibility drastically over the old "birdcage design". But if I had to guess as to the reason the canopies were designed as they were originally for the Corsair, it was for performance in having it streamlined into the fuselage to reduce drag, with pilot visibility a secondary concern. The reason the Cockpit is placed so far back however *is* something I can answer. It allowed pilots to see out the side and get into the plane while the wings were folded. Since they couldn't really place the cockpit forward, they pushed it back.
Yes you are correct. Somehow I got it right the first time, then thought I mixed it up during editing and added the correction, only to realize after posting some time later that the correction is wrong. Gotta love ADHD brain
The ultimate piston engined fighter from Sydney Camm at Hawker and Hurricane designer.The Sea Fury is a stunning aircraft and if available earlier in WW2 might have made an exciting difference.
"When the British developed the landing procedure for it." I'd encourage those interested in the F4U to read the accounts of the Royal Navy Lieutenant Commander (a) Norman S. Hanson, RNVR. Deck landing trials for the Royal Navy began on the HMS Illustrious in December 1943. Because the Royal Navy had serious problems landing the Corsair further "intensive training" was conducted on the escort carrier Ravager. During those "intensive training" trials a "new landing pattern" was established. Source: F4U Corsiar at War by Abrams pg. 73. Keep in mind the United States navy was using the "curved approach" long before the Royal navy used the "new landing pattern". The landing pattern was NOT new to the United States Navy. Also read "Whistling Death" and "Jolly Rogers". The "curved approach" or landing procedure was NOT unique for the Corsair. For those interest there is a U.S. Navy WWII standard carrier landing pattern diagram.
Fairey Swordfish did face enemy fighters of the Luftwaffe during the Channel dash, it was actually that incident that caused the Swordfish to be replaced in the frontline torpedo bomber role for the FAA by the Albacore and later Barracuda
The "Trouble" with the V-1710 Allison engine is not with the engine per se, but with a desk jockey that decided that all USAAC (later USAAF then USAF) would have only have a Single Stage Supercharger. If High Altitude Performance was "Needed" they would use a Turbo Supercharger (now simply called a Turbocharger). This is why the P-38 had to have twin booms (the things that look somewhat like a WW1 Lewis Drum fed machine-gun are the Turbochargers) and the P-47 had to be so big (to carry it's Turbocharger behind the cockpit).....
Except that the Allison had all kinds of trouble with broken cranks, thrown rods, bearing fires and especially detonation. Problems still existed when the P-38L was flight tested with the new 150 octane and couldn't handle 70" of MP (totally unrelated to the turbo system). Even the P-82 engines in Korea were a maintenance nightmare.
A 'Tweaked" version won while the Brits used a standard fully outfitted Mosquito. So the contest was rigged and cannot be trusted, fairly standard tactics. The only valid test would be a regular squadron aircraft against another. As the saying goes, The Mosquito has the runs on the board Vs the late war Black Widow
If you want to read a Japanese pilot's account of what it was like to fly and fight in a Kate, search for 'The Miraculous Torpedo Squadron', the autobiography of Juzo Mori. His account of practicing for and carrying out the attack on Pearl Harbor is especially interesting.
@0:10 - Was the Bristol Bulldog still a front-line fighter or was it relegated to colonial and other duty when the specification came out? I believe the Bulldog was introduced to RAF squadrons in 1929
Sometimes a shitty aircraft is still better than no aircraft. They needed fighters NOW…and I can certainly see how “keep building them, we’ll fix the design later…” is a logical decision.
The Ki-61 had the dubious distinction of being the Aircraft Most Destroyed On the Ground. The thing with Japan - was that their industry was just not up to the technological levels of the West. So - for them to try and produce something like an Me-109 with it's German Engineering (and we know how the Germans are) they were just not able to do it reliably. The Group Mechanics maintaining their aircraft were just not able to keep aircraft like the Ki-61 running reliably. It's not like the couldn't get any of them to fly - it's just that they had a very high incidence of grounded aircraft - which the Allies destroyed on the ground. Their home grown designers - knew that - so they designed aircraft such that these technological levels were not required. This was the case with the Mitsubishi A6M. They just didn't have a very good engine to put in it - so the aircraft was designed to be as light as they could make it so it would be able to perform with the engine they had. Since Japanese Pilots who were used to fighting the Chinese Air Force - which had a lot of biplanes - liked highly maneuverable aircraft. Japan had a Pilot Training Program that produced some of the best pilots in the world - who were also highly experienced in actual combat since the start of the War in China in 1937. Unfortunately this training program also produced only a modest number of pilots. The thing about the Japanese Military - was that at the start of the war with the West - they had a powerful, well trained military - but they could not replace their losses - and the West could. .
Kinda? The P-40s early faults though were solved thanks to NACA wind tunnel testing, and the latter faults were only discovered like two years into the war, where upon they were fixed by elongating the tail (which was introduced on the F model going forward)
Now now, its not Boeings fault. . .because Boeing has been dead for about the last 40 years. McDonnell Douglass has just been wearing the skin of Boeing masquerading as them as they casually burn everything Boeing stood for to the ground after buying Boeing with their own money.
Russians are tough mofos and so are their products. Aleksei Ovchinin and Nicholas Hague would agree. World Trade with Russia was/is blocked both when the Tsar ruled as well as post Revolution. Our ruling class wants it that way and it's what the many excuses for our military buildup ensures. Oppression and cheap resources that are "ours" (even if they're shipped to China), regardless of where they lay is the "why?" Boeing is now much like the once great Lockheed and neither can knock the 52, 16 and not even the 15 out of their roles - and that's after a trillion dollars worth of "attempts". Gentlemen, we are in the post-"just profit" era. A rising stock price is all that matters to the few that tie their compensation to it. Greenspan and Reagan knew what few saw coming. Their roles, their positions, their actions were all very deliberate and not evrtheir own ideas. It's how societies crumble. Before the "big" guys leave town they must first fleece all of the sheep.
