Russia's Forgotten WW2 Flying Boat | Beriev Be-4 [Aircraft Overview #95] 

Have a good rest. By the way, maybe tell us about the MK-1 (ANT-22) created by Tupolev. Also a flying boat, with a very unusual one.

How about looking into the shipbourne versions of the Hurricane and Spitfire? I know of a couple of interesting stories involving the Sea Hurricane being launched from merchant ships. I also like the RN's attitude to the armament, not messing around and putting cannon on their aircraft. Now I'm thinking about it there are quite a few aircraft that could making interesting videos and I wouldn't be surprised if are on your list already; Typhoon / Tempest, IL-2, FW-190 and that US attacker that when asked how many forward firing .50s it needed the the answer was simply "yes". Might be the A26 but I'm not sure

Supermarine Seagull (the Griffon-powered flying boat of the later ‘40s)

pbm-3 martin mariner /my dad was a crew chief on one ww2 thankx in advance

Any chance we could get a video on the "Tsetse" the surprisingly effective de Haviland mosquito armed with a 2 pounder gun Edit: it's a 57mm 6-pounder

We can dream, right!?! 😉 Gee, I wonder why this reminds me of my favorite plane of all time, the PBY Catalina. Hmm... 🤔 Both designed in the 1930's. Hmmm..... 😚 Could be USSR had spies in America pre-war. Hmmm... 😂

Amen. And bring back zeppelins too. I'm serious.

@William Nelson imagine drone blimps hunting submarines together with helicopters. The submarines do the dipping then the blimps carry the weapons.

@Marc van den Boogaard You and me both. Carbon fiber, double hull, with high pressure foam to give both rigidity and flotation which would also be light weight. Keep the pressure bulkheads. Keep and heighten the engineer's/wing mount of the PBY. Turbo props, with a third engine (probably electric motor there) draft distributed down for a hovercraft effect to break suction on take off. I could go on. I might have thought about this already 😉 Including the camper conversion.

Sunderland pretty pkease!

Hope the Soviet Rocket planes are coming soon. They built some adventurous designs.

This one is beautifully Russian and strange.

Look out for them being deployed to ukraine soon

I need more hot Flying Boat on Flying Boat action in my life You almost have to wonder if the both the German and Russian pilots were laughing at the absurdity of it at the time, but neither were noted for their humor

When the “turret” was mentioned I was thinking a turret akin to the patrol bomber consolidated’s blister turrets

I share your view on being a baby PBY

Grumman Duck

A bit of Widgeon in that hull's profile, too...

Smol

It is very slick. Right there with Fairchild 91.

MBR-2 wants a word

I was going to reply with the Curtiss Seahawk, but then I remembered that was a 'seaplane' and not a flying boat.

​@@anarchopupgirl MBR 2 is uglier.

Great movie.

I think so too.

Looking at Be-4 images, primarily pics of real ones, plus a few plastic model kits, there seem to be 3 different water rudder shapes used, certainly at least 2 different shapes. Are photos of actual aircraft having a water rudder very much that shape in a 2019 on a forum named massimotessitori in its Sovietwarplanes section -- difference being the actual airplane has a hinge in what is that vacant notch on this video's model. Looking at this video's 3:35 point, position water rudder a bit higher relative to fuselage, where that notch is at existing lower hinge and make notch a hair smaller, & it looks like there is a rudder shaft from top of rudder up in to fuselage, that should do it.

@@scottfw7169 And maybe not so thick. But I really have no place to talk. I couldn't draft up a model as nice as that if my life depended on it.

It's called a "balanced" rudder with the part forward on the hinge line providing a force to offset the larger part of the rudder, thus greatly reducing the effort to move the rudder.

Bail? Nyet, comrade. Parachutes are for cowards and traitors.

You should see the Italian ones that if you landed too hard the propncutnin to the nose and could remove pilots legs.

That is a feature. Prop is conveniently at arms lenght from the cockpit. If it stops, the pilot can easily manualy restart the engine by turning the prop.

Yes, I kept thinking about Howard Hughes as well. Had to look it up online to verify it, but I thought I recalled he used an amphibious 1 engine; now the Internet tells me it was a 2-engine Sikorsky S-38 and danged if Hughes didn't later crash an S-43 on a checkout flight in Lake Mead, killing 2 other people.

Well the engine placement definitely blocked the pilots upwards vision.

Mine too.

It's so good in naval oh my god 😭 You just fly level 10m off the water and hit PT boats with the gunner view

@@anarchopupgirl Are you trying to get me to play WT naval!?! 😛

@@Rabbit_AF just. Try capping a point with a seaplane once. It feels real nice

Flying boat, not floatplane

I’ve always loved the Goose

That is a really cool plane

Gee, I wonder why this remi.nds me of my favorite plane of all time, the PBY Catalina. Hmm... 🤔 Both designed in the 1930's. Hmmm..... 😚 Could be USSR had spies in America pre-war. Hmmm... 😂 I agree with you. My 1st thought was PBY.

Hell yes that's exactly what I thought, big collab with drach!

😂😂😂😂👍🏾

How many amphibious (i.e. capable of operating from both land and sea) catapult-launched aircraft do you know? I have not heard of any. There's simply no need for landing gear on a catapult-launched plane.

@@sergeychmelev5270 I can't think of any "flying boat" catapult launchers other than this one, see above. Amphib conversions for flying boats is not that uncommon, let alone having the airframe designed with amphib landing gear from the get-go. There's an obvious reason for it: its easier to maintain the aircraft if there's never a need to lift it out of the ocean with a crane, and then later deposit it either in a hangar or on some kind of rolling frame or cradle that lets the maintenance crews get at it. The smaller the plane, the more likely it only needs 1 or 2 pontoons and some outrigger floats on the wings, and the less the overall thing will weigh. The overall Mass needs to be accounted for when trying to lift it, or when it is "at rest" and pushing back against gravity all on its own. So what's better, hm? Having a single point of contact on the top of the airframe, or having multiple points of contact closer to the surface of the planet?