@@RENEGADEJon19I mean, lowest bidder which also met the requirements. History has shown that this can work both ways for people in the field, either the requirements are too stringent and there's huge delays getting equipment into service, or the expectations or understanding of what's currently capable with the technology of the time is far too low, leading to high-priced junk. Sometimes you get an F-15, and other times you get a Zumwalt-class destroyer...
@@RCAvhstape They were perfect. Check out their “Rex” floatplane. It was so good they produced more but without the float. They also got to attack different targets anytime.
Yes, just what an aeroplane with already marginal performance needs, more weight and drag, sort of surprising they didn't think to put turrets on the floats!
@@johnstirling6597 Yes, the turret ‘thing’ for fighters was a bit strange. If they were hoping to emulate the success of the WW1 Bristol Fighter then the Defiant should have had some forward-firing armament. When it comes the Roc though, utilising ANY forward firing armament would probably have caused the Roc to stall and fall like a…..well……rock. Those floats weren’t even made for it ~ they came off a Blackburn Shark. In the grossest of indignities, Boulton-Paul were the subcontractors who actually had to build the Roc which delayed their own Defiant, Blackburn being too busy building the Skua and another Blackburn horror, the Botha. It was always a mystery to me why the RAF stuck with the .303 for their own aircraft turrets, apart from late-war Rose turrets on Lancs with 2 x 50 cals ~ although at the other extreme was a Wellington with a dorsal turret mounting a 40mm Vickers ‘S’ gun!
Crazy is something a lot of British aircraft makers could do. Blackburn just seemed to do stupid and frankly, outside of the Buccaneer I don't know if Blackburn ever had a single decent plane
Blackburn, Fairey, and Bolton Paul were the holy trinity of weird British aircraft manufacturers. Then you look at the non-Spitfire creations of Supermarine…
@@calvinnickel9995 Would have LOVED to see some Disney Noseart for the Walrus! The dang thing looked like it would fly about as well as a real walrus with wings and an engine strapped to it, but the crews loved it. Crews love good airplanes.
I was waiting to mention the float-Hellcat (Hellcatfish?) proposal in the comments here, only for my face to light up with glee at the end of the Wildcatfish's segment! Good video as usual! I believe one of the primary reasons for the draggier twin pontoon configuration on either Grumman conversions would probably be the length of the propeller influencing the height of the main supporting struts, as they'd need to provide the prop clearance otherwise they'd be ripped into. The Wildcat's pudgy belly in particular also meant that it would be even taller as a result, and the aircraft would ride very high on the water compared to the Rufe, which may be suboptimal for generally getting in and out of while on the water/at a seaplane base and water handling/seaworthiness in general (and would also potentially mean more drag from the strut's length, whether that would be more than two pontoons is arguable though). This could've been relatively less of an issue on the Hellcat proposal, though I suspect that the belly may be reserved for the drop tank/ordinance on it (despite the Hellcat's belly pylon almost never being used for bombs in practice), so a twin-float configuration may have been preferred. Didn't exactly matter in the end though, thanks to both the Seabees and an overabundance of CVEs that could continue to provide support well after the main carrier fleets had moved on to other targets, there was a lack of need for either (alongside the similar XSB2C-2 prototype). On a similar note, the later Curtiss SC Seahawk (not a fighter, but a shipboard scout) used a single pontoon config alongside various aerodynamic refinements and other major changes compared to previous types, being pretty sleek for a floatplane as a result. While top speed wasn't much better than than the Wildcatfish (except on the SC-2), performance and agility was great enough that it could outclimb the F6F to 6,000 feet and reportedly even outturn the F8F, thanks to a combination of performance, low weight, low wing loading, full-length leading edge slats, good power to weight ratio, etc. While most fighters could just outrun it, that agility was valuable for flying defensively so that the Seahawk could carry out it's regular duties with some degree of safety, something that most contemporary (and preceding) VOS/VCS designs weren't well suited for. Not quite the same context as the F4F-3S and related Hellcat proposal, but notable as an example of what can possibly be done with a single float configuration. -This was totally not an excuse to talk about one of my favorite planes I swear-
My dad and brother were longtime employees of Grumman. I have 2 Grumman story books including One of A Kind. This plane was not in it. I never heard of it. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
The image of a Spitfire on floats has sent many a float driver's heart a flutter over the decades. However, having now witnessed footage of one, I feel the pilots heart may have fluttered for altogether different reasons...
Rather than Wildcat-fish, as referred to in the video, I would bet the aircraft was referred to as the Wild-Catfish, as the catfish is a well-known bit of Americana.
The "unofficial" method was to pull up from a dive and nudge the handle sending it spinning by itself thereby allowing the pilot the luxury of NOT having to crank the gear DOWN when landing....
@@JohnSmith-pl2bkAlso, to retract the gear you nose over to unload the G on the airframe as you crank them up so they feel lighter. I've watched pilots do it at air shows.
Later generation Wildcats built by GE had automated gear but yes, the gear on first generation ones built by Grumman were handcranked. These days it's not uncommon for flying examples to be retrofitted with the powered gear, but there are still a fair number of "purists" out there as well.
@@hlynkacg9529No, the FM-2 does not have a powered main landing gear retraction system, instead, it still used the hand cranked mechanism, that Grumman built F4Fs were built with, and it's the same system that the FF-1, F2F, and F3F used as well.
It's funny but the Japanese managed to build a pretty successful float plane fighter whereas as the allies never did. Thanks for the info. I actually made a balsa version of the Ruf. It's a nice looking plane.
The Japanese had many floatplane projects. Far too many. Each too specialized to build in numbers that could have an impact. One just to bomb the Panama Canal from a submarine (though that mission was altered and then canceled). One just to launch from an enormous catapult that took up the entire stern of a special light cruiser to do scouting for submarines.
It's a pity the Saunders Roe aircraft never got anywhere. I went to see the only one left in Southampton back in August. It's a really interesting aircraft that did work. There is some old film of it flying on RU-vid from Path News and other. Thank you.
Fun fact, the only allied operational seaplane fighter in 1940 was the French Loire 210 (1937). Only 19 were built but at 300 kph it was not a match for the Bf 109 either.
I read this and thought "That can't be right!", but try as I might, I could find no counter-examples. A few dive-bombers, a few more torpedo planes, and a crap ton of reconnaissance and spotter aircraft, but no allied fighters. Well done! I should have known from your username.
Yes, that was the sole XC-47C, but it wasn't intended for the production models to operate in the Mediterranean Theatre, only, because, the Army Air Force wanted them for the North Pacific Theatre.
Grumman's Wild Catfish gave it that old college try, but in the end, it was the Curtiss SC Seahawk, 577 built and in service to supplement then replace the Kingfisher in spotting.
Golly gosh those spitfires are beautiful. It's quite amusing how the conversions came from Bush plane float builder- too heavy and draggy Race plane builder- good but delicate (Both as youd except) A nation with zero experience - excellent
There never was a float equipped F6F proposal from Grumman, because the F4F-3S proved to be a dud, and, the Navy began to expand the size of their Fast Carrier force, which put to an end the idea of a seaplane fighter.
Would love to see a video on the axis floatplane fighters. Some still very much experiments but others quite mature like the Rufe. A video on the sometimes troubled development of ship launched reconnaissance floatplanes would be cool as well.
The japanese had the advantage of a much lighter aircraft as the basis of their float plane. That would seem to be the only explanation for the US and britain failing to produce an equivalent, both having entrants in the schneider trophy , so neither a novice in the field .
Nice to see the British tried and succeeded in making a fast Seaplane Spitfire. But, it essentially never got out of trials and wasn't practical enough. I guess the Japanese won this round.
Early in the war the Brits would catapult a Hurricane from a merchant ship to protect a convoy. The Hurricane would engage the enemy and then ditch near an escort vessel. When done in the Atlantic the pilot could be recovered, when done on the Murmansk Convoys, the pilot froze to death every single time. This would have been an ideal time to have any floatplane that worked. Heck, the Kingfisher had a 30 cal, it would have been very useful.
The little Kingfisher was a scout plane, as a fighter, the Japanese fighters would've shot them down with ease. However, the pilot of one landed a very lucky shot, and killed a single Zeke.
The engine that powered the F4F-3/4, and FM-1 is not the mighty R-2800 Double Wasp 18 Cylinder engine, instead, those three production variants were powered by the R-1830 Twin Wasp, 14 Cylinder engine, developing 1200 Horsepower. The Wildcat's design could never accommodate the much larger R-2800 engine. Also, the top speed of the XF4F-3S was only 241mph.
In less than a week the Seabees could make a fully functional airstrip on some gawd-forsaken South Pacific Island. In 2024 it takes a governmental agency two years to rebuild a 100 foot long interstate overpass bridge. To rebuild a 10 kilometer superhighway at the State Capital of Michigan it will take over two years and close to $1 Billion dollars. The rebuilding process is so slow that there is a 20 kilometer interstate called I-496 in Lansing that has been undergoing a reconstruction over 5 years and may not be done until 2027. Japan just should have water 80 years to declare war on the USA.
@@mikepette4422Actually, that was the more refined SC-2 powered by a turbocharged R-1820 engine, not the earlier SC-1, which did see some wartime service.
The Ido(?) Corporation of "Lawn Guyland" New York. Where did this Brit narrator pick up the Long Island "G"? Did someone convince him that this is the typical American English accent?
These float planes armed with modern missiles and avionics could still pack a punch when stationed around the pacific islands to ambush Chinese forces if they advanced on Taiwan. This is the last thing the Chinese would be looking for, but it could serve as a missile platform to take out ships or aircraft! They would definitely be a surprise as they popped up from behind a jungle canopy! LOL!
Somehow i get the feeling getting contracts had nothing to do with war material but to fulfill family member dreams of never having to work and any idea that allowed that was considered. Legit Military war material was designed contracted out and produced. The money is/was in all the superfluous concepts. Float planes really????
Uh no. This isn’t DCS or War Thunder. Remember.. the A-10 was only able to put something like 17% of its shells onto a _stationary_ tank in non-combat conditions. Guided munitions rule.
