If you are looking for technical information about historical Airplanes and Automobiles, this is the right channel for you.
My name is Greg, and I am a life long aircraft and automotive enthusiast, and I work professionally in both fields.
The aviation side of this channel has a heavy focus on WW1 and WW2 aircraft, although I will occasionally touch on jets. My automotive focus is largely on Italian cars and Muscle cars, but I like almost all cars. Since I have an all wheel drive dyno in my shop near Tulsa I will frequently use it in videos.
My Patreon is here: www.patreon.com/GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
I didn't see a single Subaru at Hallett Raceway last Thursday. Nor am I likely to see any tonight at Tulsa Raceway Park. I hope I'm wrong because I do like seeing other turbo 4s there.
The F35 is not one plane,it is 3! The variants have low parts commonality. The A, B, and C are designed for specific service requirements. They are practically not interchangeable to the pilot. Type a and c require extra training for carrier operation. Inn addition, the B version requires VTOL training.,
I remember this had happened a few years ago to some rich kid who just gotten a tricked out Ford mustang. He was racing got into a horrific accident. The police got access to his on-board car computer that recorded him going well over a hundred miles an hour. He was found guilty and sentenced.
Flew hundreds of flights as a passenger in 727's and DC9s.... 727 was my favourite, I remember the stair case under the tail which could be opened for a quick exit in the days when many airports did not have boarding bridges. Also on one occasion aboard a 727 we encountered Clear Air Turbulence, the airplane survived it no problem. Built like a brick S***house !
No for every thing the Mossie did the P38 could could not or did not do. Mossie PR, N/F, T, B ,FB, HS Courier ,HS diplomatic passenger, Air Medical , Pathfinder, Naval Plane P38 Fighter P/R T/B Pathfinder, HS Medical evac, F/B .
I can't think of a Mossie Naval plane, it certainly never flew operationally off of a carrier. I guess it sort of depends on what you mean by "Naval Plane". Test flying sure, like the P-38 tested as a float plane, but that never went anywhere either.
Greg with tongue in cheek I must point out that the Mosquito was Foreign and the Companies asked to report on it were American. Can you really expect the wider readers to believe that the Mosquito would get an unbiased report .
You underestimate the forces of capitalism. If Beechcraft, a company famous for building foreign designs thought that they could make a profit by building Mossies, they probably would have. However, and this is just my opinion, I think they thought they could make more money building the Grizzly. There really isn't any way to know.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles MNate when it comes to self interest they will always go for their own When Napier were having problems with the Sabre. R/R suggested to Lord Beaverbrook that he should close them down and use their facilities to build Merlins. Beaverbrook literally told Rolls Royce to shut up .
Many thanks for all the hard work, you and anyone else! US highest score aces flew P-38: Richard Bong at #1 (yes, bong). Especially after the hydraulic-boost controls gave it an almost flick roll. Have you any data on the turbo disk shards (due to manufacture problems) causing !!BANG!! problems with the engines, and whether the poor quality of the fuel in the field (octane aside) caused a lot of the turbo trouble? I've heard, but have no details. This is the aircraft I fly in sims because you can use quickly ACM-around to use one of them big motors to suck up some 20mm and then fly home on the other. So said a P-38 ace, and it works in the sims!!! ;-]
It would have been interesting to see if the twin fuselage design would have had a higher critical mach number. As they eventually realized, putting the fattest part of the gondola and canopy over the fattest part of the wing and between the booms accelerated the air over the wing, pushing it closer to mach 1. The rapid taper of the gondola further accelerated the air. I know that NACA did some tests and proposed modifications to get the critical Mach up to somewhere around 0.77, but I wonder how the twin fuselage version made with mid 1930's tech wound have done?
So Greg, first of all love you work on both the aircraft side and the car side. Second I would love for you to address something. I saw a video about British thinkers during WW2 wanting to remove defensive armament from lancasters. I was wondering if the US had decided to go that route with the B-17 and B-24 what would the implications on range, service ceiling, speed etc. Could it have worked and saved lives?
It would not have worked and would have probably delayed the Allied victory. I may talk about this at some point in the future. I have actually touched on this somewhere on this channel.
This was a very well made video, about a very cool and not very often talked about plane. I love yhe concept of a flying boat. We need to bring them back. Nowadays: everybody is always rushing to get nowhere and forget about the journey. Thanks again for the great video. 🍻
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles first off, love the videos! True favorite. I'm just saying a sailing ship has a keel and a rudder for similarish reasons. I dont think shipbuilders were thinking of flight, although aviation pioneers may well have looked to ships and boats for information. The Wright brothers invented the airplane, no doubt from me!
I just learned that there is a monument for Whitehead in Connecticut; a fountain with a model of the 21, and a plaque that says "First in flight"! I have no idea if this is paid for by the state, or someone else, but it shows how persistent bad history can be.
Enough years go by, and the facts are revealed. Fact is, Marion was a racist and for good measure a misogynist. Lindbergh was also not only a pathetic racist. He was for good measure - also a nazi sympathizer. Some believe charles hatred for certain peoples was answered by karma.
One thing that I have always wondered is how the 354th FG was detailed into the 9th AF if you are weeping for long range escorts. What would cause that? It seems pretty definitive to me that General Kinney smiting a rock and innumerable drop tanks springing forth is important. Why --couldn't-- the 8th AF do that? You can see why in the lean years the Bomber mafia would pour scarce dollars into the Baker Wun Seven. By 1942 the money taps were full on. Getting our best guys killed to prove that bombers could be self defending is pretty creepy. Why the YB-40? Greg said that got priority but efficient P-47 fuel pumps did not. I tend to like Greg's interpretation but that lack of drop tanks because of caprice just seems so odd. But another thing is that the Germans adapted and the USAAF didn't adapt in a timely fashion. "Yes Heinz you love your ME-109F and you are a deadly shot. But we haf to whack the Veirmots!" And the Germans brought the bulk of their fighter force back from Russia where they were losing, and from the Med where they were losing, to fight the B-17s. American techniques and priorities were slow to change. Once the rocket firing fighters were added into the Day Fighter force it turned the best USAAF technique on its head -- this was very tight formations that the Germans couldn't fly through. The bomber gunners would whack them as they turned away! That was a strange wet dream if Arnold and Eaker thought it would work. A good rocket salvo could flip a B-17 into a second or even two others if the formation was really tight. By Spring '44 the Mustangs and Lightnings had knocked the rocket firing fighters out of the mix over the deep targets. So on 12 May the Germans made a strong even fanatical interception, but "only" 46 bombers were lost. With the rocket firing Huns out of the fight, losses came back into the reasonable range. Unfortunately from Blitz Week to second Schweinfurt the ME-110s and some SE fighters had free play with the rockets. And that is ultimately on the Bomber Mafia; that is Greg's persuasive premise. And it's a damn shame.
I had always heard that the "bomber mafia" in the USAAF was so convinced that the B-17 defensive box firepower would be able to defend itself without fighter escorts that they deliberately suppressed range extension of the P-47.
Wonderful exposition of this largely forgotten technology. Thank you much for sharing your information and insights on this matter. As fuel economy standards tighten I could see a new gen of power recovery turbines driving a generator to provide charge/electric power on an automotive drivetrain. Of course, cost will be the driver here.
Where's the Mosquito? It carried the same bomb-load to Berlin as the B17 but did it on just two engines with one fifth of the crew, one third of the fuel and did it faster. And they tended to actually hit the target to boot...
Not really. The Mossie was bombing at night, the accuracy standards were just to hit the city, not a specific target, which makes it's accuracy numbers falsely high as compared to a B-17 daylight raid. In other words if all of the bombs miss the factory by a half mile, but hit the city, for the Mossie that's a 100 percent bombs on target mission, for the US it's zero. Also, the 4000 pound "bomb" the Mossie carried was not a weapon that could be aimed like a normal bomb, it was essentially a barrel, not at all accurate. Those are not even the biggest problems with these comparisons. I could do an entire video on Mossie misconceptions. It was a great airplane, but it can't walk on water, or replace the B-17.
the P40 had a much stronger wing than a 109 and much better ailerons in a dive so a common tactic for a P40 was to dive steeply and if a 109 chased them down, they could perform a roll in the dive that a 109 couldnt hope to follow and the P40 could change direction and get away. German pilots had much respect for the firepower of a P40 and were under no illusions that a P40 was a dangerous enemy in the right hands.
No, but it can carry two 2000 pound bombs, and it can hit things with them. Plus while doing that it can carry 10 5" HVARs and then fight it's way out.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles it's interesting that the USAAF chose to use the Spitfire and Mosquito for reconnaissance in spite of having access to P51s and P38s . You know that the P38 was having problems especially in the ETO probably largely sorted by the the L version . Of course the British rejected it because they were not supplied with the turbo superchargers . Ultimately by mid 1944 all the bugs in all their designs had been ironed out . The problem was that USA was not ready to fight in 1942 . The fact that within 2 years they had turned this around was testament to their dynamism and ability to learn fast . By 1944 the Mosquito was being fitted with the 2 stage merlin . I think there is enough evidence to say it was the best high altitude light bomber and night fighter ; and long range reconnaissance .
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I have 1/48 scale models of these bombs they must cause large amount of drag ; they sometimes carried them on the Skyraider . Looking at the service history the P38 was mainly successful as an interceptor in the Pacific Theatre . It had some success in Tunisia even in the fighter bomber .role . In the hands of an experienced pilot it was a very good aircraft . I don't have the data but I believe the P38 was very expensive .
Not to say your concerns are not warranted, but all bluetooth devices will "share" that information, contacts, messages etc. For the screen in the dash to display "Bob - home is calling" or to display your messages on its screen, that data must be shared. That is the sharing that legally they must disclose. Not having read the 500 pages or even 1 of the manual, I can't say what ford does with it after that, but that is the standard disclaimer in just about every bluetooth device. For whats its worth, you can disable contact sharing with a bluetooth device on an iphone so I have been told, android users can opt out only when pairing.
You can turn certain things off. However those things can be turned back on remotely without you knowing, so it's never really off. Not only were my concerns warranted, they have now been proven. People are finding their insurance rates going way up, doubling in some cases due to data the car reported.
How would you characterize the split housing automotive turbochargers that separate different cylinder banks into separate inlets to the same wheel-type exhaust turbine? I've heard claim that they're no longer pressure type turbochargers. idk what the back-pressure effects are.
The problem of getting the range out of the 47 is a production and engineering issue. We were cranking out whole _ships_ in days by 1943! Not having tanks was a _choice_ at this point.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles and the Mk-14 torpedo shenanigans that took officers ignoring higher command by performing and *documenting* what was wrong with the bloody things is all the proof you need to show how ego and reputation not only can but _did_ get men needlessly killed.😔
