วีดีโอ

Generally considered to be the best Italian fighter aircraft of WW II. It had a top speed equal to that of the P-51 Mustang.

The poor lil Aircobra was GELDED, NEUTERED by the ARMY AIR CORPS before it entered the war! Originally designed to AAC specifications for HIGH SPEED and HEAVY FIREPOWER to CLIMB HIGH and fast to BLAST enemy heavy bombers out of the sky (with that HUGE 37mm canon in the nose), the P-39 was a VICTIM of PRE-WAR BUDGET CUTS when the AAC told Bell Aircraft to DELETE the turbo intercooler, both for costs and weight, and because the big scoops on either side of the fuselage added significant drag. Then the AAC DOUBLED DOWN on NEUTERING the poor lil P-39... DELETING the pilot's OXYGEN SYSTEM as ANOTHER cost-saving item! So even though the non-intercooled Airacobra COULD fly to 14,000 feet - the PILOTS COULD NOT without oxygen! This meant that in fighting over Guadalcanal and New Guinea - the later with 14,000 ft mountains and high passes that had to be flown over - the P-39 could NEVER get to high altitude, so the ZEROES COMING IN _ALWAYS_ had the ALTITUDE ADVANTAGE.... which as everyone knows is 3/4s of a dogfight. And while Grumman (Wildcat & Hellcat), Republic (P-47 Thunderbolt), Chance-Vought (Corsair) and North American (Mustang) were CONSTANTLY IMPROVING their fighters, eking out EVERY EXTRA OUNCE OF POWER they could find, the Aircobras never gained much more power than they started with - Bell really let the ball drop. _(As did Wright-CURTISS with their P-40 Warhawk fighters: at the beginning of WW II Curtis-Wright was BIGGER THAN General Motors OR Ford as an industrial corporation - but even though their P-40 was a workhorse, it never kept up with the top-tier fighters, and by the end of the war, with so many problems with their new engines and new aircraft designs, Curtis-Wright had been EXCLIPSED by almost everyone)_ Ironically, BELL HAD A WAR-WINNER in their hands.... but they FAILED to see it! The engine sat BEHIND THE PILOT, and drove the propeller in front via a long DRIVE-SHAFT and gears - this transmission system is widely acknowledged as being very effective - among the P-39's design flaws (doors instead of sliding canopy made it hard for pilots to bail out; rearwards CG from engine location made flat spins impossible to get out of; above mentioned deletion of intercooler and underpowered performance) the drive/transmission system is NEVER mentioned. What Bell SHOULD have done is use the REAR ENGINE to DRIVE A REAR, pusher PROPELLER, INSTALL a FRONT ENGINE to drive a FRONT propeller, and scale up the wings, fuselage, landing gear, fuel tanks (etc) to handle the added weight and fuel fuel requirements. Had they done this, this would have been a MUCH "CLEANER" aircraft (less drag) than the P-38 or any other twin-engine fighter - even the superb deHaviland Hornet! - they would have had a tough little war-winner on their hands that could outperform the Mustang or even the late model P-47s! As it was, the Russians, "soviets," Red Army pilots LOVED their Aircobras - while not quite as maneuverable as a Japanese ZERO, they were MORE maneuverable than anything the Germans had, especially at low altitudes, and compared to "soviet" produced aircraft the P-39s were very well made and finished, with radios and other features that made pilots' lives much easier.

An USAAF Airacobra blew a strafing Zero to pieces over Henderson Field on Guadalcanal to the cheers of the Marines.

The video does not say that the wings were lengthened three feet and the engines were changed. THAT is when they stopped crashing. RIP- Flight Engineer Joe A. Pyle, Kaufman County, Texas, 1944

The Allison V-1710 HAD a supercharger, and not ONLY on the P-38 Lightning. Yes, the Lightning had turbosuperchargers AND a single speed, single stage mechanical supercharger, what every V-1710 had. The problem was that the stock single speed, single stage mechanical supercharger was not suited for higher altitude operations with sufficient power output. The Zero also had only mechanical supercharger, and as far as I know it was not even more advanced. But somehow it worked better than the Allison's one. For example the Wildcat's R-1830 had multistage, multispeed mechanical supercharger which was more advanced. That's an other question, that the Wildcat was a heavy beast and an agile "butterfly" like the Zero.

Thanks mate. Cheers

Found your post on Facebook, it just came up because I have liked Corsair Facebook posts in the past. Thanks for sharing some history on the plane. My dad flew Corsairs for RNZAF in WWII in the Solomon Islands.

Great video. Love the B-26 Marauder. Very sleek looking & clean lines with power & speed. Love to see one flying some day.

Thanks

LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAME!!! 👎👎👎👎👎💩💩💩💩💩

While there were better, more advanced Japanese Navy and Army fighter planes of 1944-45, the 1942 Nakajima Ki-44 Shoki, aka, "Tojo", has a special place in my estimation. For its time period, military aviation historians describe the Ki-44 as matching the standards of contemporary Allied fighter planes. The Ki-44 Shoki could reach 376mph, faster than all early 1942 Allied fighter planes except the P-38 Lightning. The Shoki also possessed diving speed due to its stronger structural rigidity. It sacrificed maneuverability for speed as an interceptor, but only by Japanese standards. To the Allies, the Shoki was maneuverable enough. The Shoki's main drawback was its light armament of only four, 12.9mm heavy machine guns, perhaps adequate for 1942 going into 43 but definitely insufficient for 1944-45. The Japanese Army Air Force at first believed only experienced fighter pilots could master the Ki-44 due to its higher performance and higher landing speed. But experience showed that novice Japanese Army pilots, who had no preconceived notions of any fighter plane, could master the Shoki as they were not yet used to one type of fighter aircraft. Still, the Japanese Army Air Force placed greater emphasis on maneuverability like the Japanese Navy Air Force, and thus contracted for far more Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa light fighter planes, aka, "Oscar", by the Allies. The Ki-43 carried even less armament of only two, 12.7mm heavy machine guns. Something like only 1,200 Shokis were ever manufactured. The surviving Ki-44 Shokis shouldered on to the bitter end, as Japan homeland air defense interceptors vainly struggling to reach the high-flying B-29 Superfortress bombers. Military aviation historians today are of the opinion that the Japanese Army Air Force should have invested far more in the higher performance Ki-44 than the lighter, slower, less-armed, but highly maneuverable Ki-43 Hayabusa. The K-i-44 was better suited for air-to-air combat against Allied fighter planes.

Keep on trying.

The most beautiful military aircraft ever built

You forgot the DH Hornet 485 mph. with production speed 474 mph. No evidence that it flew at the speed quoted in development. No reports of the 335 being confronted by Clostermann's Tempests in combat reports that were obligatorily done after every combat mission.

Such brave and honorable men flew in these machines! I should know, my father was a tail gunner in a B-17! All these men on both sides of the pond fought fascism for us! We shouldn't have to fight it again, but we will! The Sons and Daughters of those brave men!

Such Brave Honorable Men that climbed into those early flying war machines! I should know, my father was a tail Gunner and a B-17! I'll fight fascism just as he fought fascism! These brave men fought fascism for us, we shouldn't have to fight it again!

Was not the Sterling also the only four engined bomber in WW2 as designed from scratch. The Lancaster was originally designed as a two engined bomber.

What makes the Stirling Great? Absolutely nothing !

My dad used to make Stirlings during the war at Rochester Kent.

You've established its fame for its versitility, but surly its weapontry and performance where major contributing factors.

A friend of mine flew them in the Malayan emergency. They did indeed represent the pinnacle of propeller-driven aircraft; however their life was limited by corrosion of the duralumin wing spar caps, which were Redux-bonded to the wooden spar - which is probably why nobody has built a modern example. Wood necessarily contains about 12% moisture, so bonding a high-strength aluminium alloy to it is a problematical issue - as de Havilland discovered. It was a short life, but a gay one.

Excellent photos and article. Thank you.

My favourite heavy bomber. M

I was always told by my Dad and Grandfather both ex RAF it was bought in as a propaganda thing 4 engined heavy bomber etc etc. & using Sunderland wings limited it’s ceiling only any good as a glider tug!!!! Was used as the terrible Manchester kept falling out the sky, wonder whatever happened to that plane?

Very interesting many thanks

Some of those have their tail wheels extended. Presumably at some point, they must have decided to fix them down permanently

Not only that, the Lancaster and Halifax crews were glad when the Stirlings were on the same target as the fighters would feed off the Stirling due to its lower altitude. Then there was the saying the Lancaster bombed the Halifax and the Both, bombed the Stirling.

My great uncle was a rear gunner in one and died over the ruhr in 1943. They were used as cannon fodder to make up numbers in the "1000 plane raids" long after they should of been taken out of service. He flew 30 missions as a gunner, then retrained as a pilot officer. He came from Southwark, just south of the Thames in London. I think his motivation for this monumental achievement was the high number of close family members lost in the Blitz of London. RIP Freddie Somers. XxX

I'm sure I've read somewhere that 'spirited' pilots even performed loops and barrel rolls in the Stirling (not loaded with bombs) and I also heard the story about it outurning the Me110 in combat. But even though it was no longer a front line aircraft, it still did amazing work as a glider tug (2 Airspeed Horsas per Stirling?) and dropping vital supplies to partisans and SOE agents.

My late uncle flew a Stirling III in WW2, he described the decision to shorten the wingspan by 14 feet from the original design (using the wing from the Sunderland flying boat) as disastrous, as it limited the aircraft's maximum operating altitude to less than 12,000 feet, which meant on raids over Germany the Stirlings had to fly through the Alps rather than over them. In addition this left the Stirlings easy prey for searchlights, anti-aircraft guns, and highly manoeuverable night fighters like the dreaded Focke-Wulf FW190, the 'Butcher Bird' as my uncle called it, and he said they were 'sitting ducks'. The Stirling had the highest crew fatality rate of any RAF aircraft.

I’ve loved this aircraft ever since I had the Airfix kit (great parts:cost ratio but I blame it for perpetrating the myth of the hangar door wingspan restriction). However, it was Lancaster’s ugly sister and the bastard child of an over-ambitious specification, the original Shorts proposal’s being considered well behind the other 5 submissions even before Air Ministry’s changes, becoming Hobson’s Choice when all its competitors fell out for wider considerations. It was made worse by make-do modifications such as the tall undercarriage, a cheap and quick fix to get a shorter take off run.

Kudos for not perpetuating the myth that the wingspan was limited to fit inside hangars, for which I blame Airfix’s instructions. A Gp Capt Oxland, head of OR, suggested it in order to keep down size and hence cost. Relevant hangar door widths exceeded 100 ft substantially and the spec required all servicing at flying units (MUs had even larger hangars) to be outside.

My dad did some of his training in Stirlings, which by then were tired and clapped out. According to the HCU ORB's there was at least 2 crashes while he was there, resulting in the crews losing their lives. Apparently the Stirling was more maneuverable than the Lanc and Halifax and could easliy hold their own in fighter affiliation training.

I feel sorry for Shorts, who were forced to design it with a wingspan of less than 100 feet, so it would fit inside pre-war hangars. It's interesting to reflect on how very different the performance of this type would have been without that absurd restriction.

Not a lot..apart from brave pilots. Bomber Harris hated it. It couldnt fly fast enough, it couldnt fly far enough, it couldnt fly high enough, plus it couldnt carry enough. Harris just wanted more Lancasters.

Also used for SOE operations and Maquis arms drops. 😊

Thanks for this.

In it's day the biggest plane in the world

I think used by the SOE out of Lincolnshire

Ah! the much reported short wingspan which was bigger than the Halifax l but nobody goes on about that

If beauty had wings, this would be it.

No surviving example, now that is really sad. Thanks for the short story on this not so well know aircraft that did its part in the war.

You mistake that Britain was broke meaning this plane could not be replaced inadequate timely manner with greatness.

There were NO angled flight decks in WWII

Interesting to see a Firefly with D Day markings. I was unaware that any were used in such action and would be interested in further detail.

😂I luckily got to The Canadian Warplane Heritage at Hamilton, Ontario a few months ago. There they fly a Fairey Firefly, as well as Lancaster Vera and the day I visited, both flew.

Grossly overweight for its power - and wingspan (15000 lbs, 41 ft span, 2300 HP) - so it lost speed in a tight turn rather dramatically. (Spitfire Mk XIV - 7900 lbs, just under 37 ft span, 2050 HP) - so the Firefly was hopeless in a dogfight against contemporary single- seat fighters. We had them in Australia, but got rid of them for the Gannet & the Seafury.

Wow a Fairey aircraft that was actually useful!

What makes it great is the surplus ones make great family camping aeroplanes.

You can't miss the Spitfire/Typhoon lineage in the lines of that plane. Especially with the elliptical wing construction. Great video with great pictures I've never seen before. I'm in the US and haven't been privy to this aircraft as much as US stuff. We're constantly bombarded with all the US planes from WW2 to now. And if UK aircraft are covered it's usually the Spitfire and Lancaster. They ARE 2 great aircraft, but the UK had other great and interesting planes. My favorite has always been the Hawker Typhoon. It just looks badass. Can't wait for the next one, cheers!