So did Korea; the North Koreans were still using the old Polikarpov Po-2s for night nuisance raids (commonly known to US Troops as Bed Check Charlie), right up to the armistice. World War 2 also saw a few horseback charges, mainly in Poland and in China, and the first TV-guided drones and first weapons to definitively cross the 62-mile line into space. (There are arguments about whether WW1's Paris Gun did or didn't get quite that high, but the V2 sure did). And the early phases of the US war against the Taliban in 2002 saw horse-mounted US Special Forces calling in airstrikes via satellite.)
@Marco D'Magnifico They surrendered to the model planes because they knew what their appearance foreshadowed. One Iraqi armour unit commander was asked why he surrendered without a fight. His answer was "the damn B-52's". When it was stated that his unit had not been attacked by the bombers, his answer was "Yes I know that, but I saw one that had been".
Gravity bombs to ballistic missiles, ground spotters to radar technology, bolt actions to selective fire rifles. It really is the most fascinating, albeit terrible, war when it comes to military advances.
I was a crew chief in the USAF in the 60's and worked on the P-80 and AT-33, the AT-33 was a T-33 with guns and bomb racks. I laughed every year when we had to do a "termite inspection" yearly as the floor of the jet was wooden. During Viet Nam the AF decided to try to convert an AT-33 to carry a Vulcan 20 MM gun pod for close ground support. We modified it to mount a gun pod on the centerline rack and took it to the borescope gun range where we jacked it and retracted the nose gear. We had to pump the gear struts up to give clearance. The gun fired great. The jet flew on a test flight to Gila Bend Az. range to test the gun. The acft came back on an emergency and it was parked by me and the canopy was still down. I had to open the canopy and saw that the pilot was very upset, he told me that when he hit the gun the recoil from the gun almost stopped the jet in flight. He said some other things but I can't put them here. Oh well we tried.
@@galenhaugh3158 Yeah, we were crew chiefs on F-4 fighters that used the same gun and we knew that there would be problems but the "expert" engineers that were from the USAF thought different. The engineers usually don't listen to lowly mechanics so I learned through my career in the AF. We were told to take the gun off. One of the guys drew a cartoon of a T-33 with a Hound dog missile (from a B-52) on the centerline. We were told to not do that anymore by the commander although he was smiling.
@@derekadair7522 No, we weren't allowed to take pictures on the flight line, the F-4's were secret and the U-2's were top secret. The T-33's were right next to them. I do think that that flight is embedded in that pilots memory for ever, I wish I had a picture of him when I opened the canopy.
The same was true for most early advanced propeller aircraft of the war. Some were exceptional right out of the starting gate and some had teething problems.
My dad had 8 hrs in the T33 before he washed out of flight school. One of the high points of his life. On his deathbed, flying on synthetic morphine, he described to me a waking dream....turning in formation in the T33, high above Lackland air base. I salute you, Pop.
Yeager commented in his book that the ME262 and P80 had very similar flight characteristics. However, I should add that I read his book back when it was published in the mid-1980s. I don't trust my memory, but this was one of the things I most recall about his book.
The last time I watched the History Channel it was actually a channel and it actually ran programs about history. That shows how long it's been since I watched the History Channel.😋
What would have happened if the P80 Shooting Star had encountered the ME262? It probably would’ve crashed.. For one thing, the Americans had not yet adopted they swept mine concept that the Germans had figured out in their wind tunnel research. This was one theory proposed as to the instability of the P80 at its top speed.
From my readings... after the war both of the inventors of the jet engine met, German and British. They shared information with each other and were amazed to find out they both reached the same conclusion via different design routes. One of those rare times in history where simultaneous inventions take place with neither person aware of the others work. They became close friends, working together on projects well into their latter years.
Nearly but not quite? Post war, Von Ohain later admitted that he was aware of Whittle's work and had studied his patent. Although he had already started on his own path by the time he saw them. I believe Eric Brown also mentions this in one of his interviews as he obviously knew Whittle.
Random fact: Mark's grandfather was a British soldier who fought in the Burma front of WWII. He said so himself in a community post a little while back. Just something for new viewers that I thought you'd find interesting. :)
He must have gone through some tough times. My dad was conscripted in 1944 and was sent for jungle training - he was going to be dispatched to Burma and he said he was absolutely terrified. Luckily he was re-assigned to a fuel supply team, worked on fuel supply projects for the Normandy landings and was eventually posted to Greece
Many grandfathers probably fought, mine WW1 and WW2. I would have loved now to talk to him about his experiences, but most i remember him, hands on face , elbows on knees staring at the floor. I wonder what he was thinking. This was back in 70's. I'm now 60, i think more of the past than the present.
@@davidwilliams5749 agreed, and also I feel that it's really unique stories and new fresh untold stories from different perspectives. With the same staccato delivery from Mark.
For myself, and many others, a T-33 ride was our first time in a jet cockpit. What a memory. A classmate of mine once hit the wrong switch on that ride, and kicked off the wing tanks over Tinker AFB.
My dad was an Air Force fighter pilot. He was an instructor pilot for a time in the T-33. In fact, the picture shown is my dad getting into his T-33 as a Capt/Instructor in Texas where my mom met him. Miss you dad! He served over 30 years. Starting on the F-86, F-102 and 106, Forward Air Controller in Vietnam in OV-10s, 10 years in SAC flying B-52s and KC-135s, then back to OV-10s in Germany. Finishing with the B-1 Bombers in Kansas before retiring.
As a pilot I once met an old man on the golf course in Brunswick GA. He said he was a pilot too . He said he was the LSO on the USS Langly. He also said his last assignments were to fly the P-80 at the airport In Brunswick. He said it was a Navy airstrip during the war. He looked pretty old but…while we spoke he came alive …and appeared grow “younger “ the more we spoke of his fighter pilot days.
Don't forget one of the best jet out of WW2, the D.H. Vampire which first flew in Sept 1943 and were in production before the end of the war. By the way it had the engine within the fuselage.
My local college rescued one from the shredder. Restored it, flew it around for a few years then put it on display out front of the local airport. They did a great job on it. There's still quite a lot of them in private hands that are air worthy.
@@letoubib21 You probably already know, but Howard Hughes spent so much time editing and re-editing the flying scenes (7 years), the planes were obsolete by the time he was finished and the movie was released.
During the Korean war, Australian pilots flying the Gloster Meteor F8 against the superior MIG15 had a song; 'all I want for Christmas is my wing swept back'.
Seems pretty obvious to me. A boozer rewording of the children's song 'All I Want For Christmas Is My Two Front Teeth.' Cant imagine Dickens or some stage musical years after the war ended had anything to do with it?
I'm so glad I found this channel. I have been fascinated by ww2 since I was a boy and my grandfather would tell me about battles. I have never watched any documentaries with a better narrator. Mark is a natural and I've watched thousands of documentaries. Thank you so much Dr. Felton
Mark Felton is much, much more than a narrator, but yes, he is a wonderful narrator. He is also a very highly respected author. I love his writing style.
The P-80 Shooting Star was a great jet in its day. The F-94 Starfire was developed from the T-33 and the F-80 Shooting Star. Lockheed has built great aircraft since its inception from the beautiful P-38 Lightenings of WW2 to the current day F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II. My late father flew the P-80, the T-33, the F-94 and the F-104 in his career in the Air Corps and the U.S.A.F.
I'm getting tears for you Dr. Felton. You now reached the million mark. A feat that is so hard to achieve to history based channels on TH-cam. Also, I'm so proud to say that I am one of the early subscriber of your Channel ever since you reached 10k subscribers. It's a privilege to listen to a history geek like you to a now a graduate of BA in History like me.
I don't understand how Mark is plopping out so many quality videos on steady short period. I assume there is a few people working together, but the amount of research being done in such a speed is incredible.
There's a big chance there's only one person doing it. A lot of this information can be found from the internet if you really look for it, and assuming he makes his living from this he would have the time for research. Getting the ideas for relevant/interesting video topics is the hardest part
Thanks for Featuring my great uncle Frank Whittle! Woohoo!! His legacy lives on in my family with careers in AeroSpace and hobby of building and flying planes. (I also just got the new Microsoft Flight Sim). Keep up the great videos, Mark!
I read a book, a few years ago, about his invention and development of the jet engine, and I must say that it certainly didn't seem like he was given very much help to start with, whereas the Germans saw its potential and invested in research quite early on.
@@jerribee1 FUN FACT: Ohain, the inventor of the German jet engine, read Whittle's patents and copied them. Whilst Whittle was begging for funding, Ohain received generous state funding before the war. Then the funding was reduced because Hitler believed the war would be over and won before the jet engine would enter service. The Whittle design was superior to the German imitation.
@Tom L Don't listen to Eskimo Buddha. That's not embarrassing, that kind of longevity is a testimonial to good old American workmanship (the quality if which we foolishly allowed to slack off and become "planned obsolescence" in the decades that followed) and your Canadian ground crew's ability to keep it in good repair.
@@pauld6967 Except that we used British engines and built the airframes ourselves. That said it was a US design and probably a lot of critical subcomponents would have come from the US. Unfortunately the Canadian air force mechanics have had excessive experience keeping veteran aircraft serviceable. In this case, if you build 600 of something you can scavenge parts for a long time before you get down to the last couple of dozen.
The trainer version of the F-80, the T-33, retired from the Turkish Air Force in 1997, after a 46-year-long service. As a kid in the early '90's, I'd watch the Shooting Stars perform basic aerial maneuvers above Bandirma, Turkey. As a 36-year old man, I find it pretty exciting to have witnessed one of the earliest jet-powered fighters (albeit a training derivative) fly actively. The same goes for the C-47, which flew in TuAF until as recently as 1998.
Only jet I ever flew was the T trainer he mentioned, it was so low powered but smooth and beautifully aerodynamic, probably the easiest thing I've ever flown, a twin engine prop is more tedious than it was, a real treat
I've seen my share of T-33's until the 1990's. They looked and flew wonderfully. That proves the success of the design. Thanks for yet another excellent upload, Mark.
As a child I played with a light blue plastic Shooting star. At the age of < 5 I didnt know about jet engines so I supposed the nose cone belonged to a propeller so I flew it with the noise brrrr... brrr.... brrrrr...
As a boy I built a plastic model and hung it from my bedroom ceiling with some others. Later, I flew military for thirty years all in Army helicopters.
I worked as an Avionics Technician on the T-33 from 1982-1988 at Tyndall AFB. I have many back seat hours on this fun plane. It was a very good trainer. Two of them are at the Air and Space Museums in DC and Virginia, and I worked on both of them back in the day.
To cool we where there at the same time. Good old 95 AMU. Loaded ECM pods and run and taxi for engine shop. To bad he didn't show one short stacked. Go Bone Heads.
Thank you for this. A testament to the brilliant engineers & technicians of the Lockheed Skunk Works. As a tech in the Canadian Forces during the Cold War, I had the privilege of working on the successor of the P-80, the 2 seat CT-133 Silver Star. This aircraft certainly deserves a follow up video, hint, hint. The Canadian T-33 was built under license by Canadair in Montreal & was fitted with the more powerful Rolls Royce Nene 10 powerplant vs the US Allison powered version. Some were supplied to Bolivia, France, Greece, Turkey & Portugal. A number of civilian registered CT-133's fly to this day. Boeing recently retired 2 Canadair CT-133 aircraft used as chase planes. They rate right up there in longevity & robustness with the venerable Douglas DC-3, even though roles & design differ, fighter/trainer vs cargo/passenger.
Extraordinary and beautiful aircraft in the "Art Deco" style. To think this (from memory) went from scratch to first flight in about 145 days. Clarence "Kelly" Johnson and his "Skunk Works" (a curtained off area where none but the small crew of engineers and fabricators could go into) from the " Lil Abner" Comic Strip of the era, is to me one of the most romantic stories of Aircraft design of WWII. 6,000 miles away from the combat zone, in sunny California, these men and women designed another of the line that stretched back via Altair, Electra, Hudson, P38 and Constellation, and would go onward to Starfigher, U2, and Galaxy, And the generosity De Havilland showed, in removing and shipping out the second Goblin taken from the Vampire, after Lockheed had run the P80 up against advice and sucked the thin intake ducts in to the engine, destroying it, shows that for the USA and the UK "Blood is thicker than Water". This a wonderful story about a beautiful aircraft. Thanks for the Video.
Lockheed (and others of interest) will be owned by China soon or at the very least infiltrated to get "eyes" on any developments. China has been conquering by acquisition rather than war. It is more cost effective and less detectable. General Electric second largest arm the GE Appliances is now Chinese owned. The next home appliance you buy is not only made in China but the brand itself is Chinese owned. Because you paid for it you are also funding Chinese interest.
@@crxdelsolsir ~ One world communism/fascist government through corporations, including incorporated government. All countries are in debt to global banking system. The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 Communist China is financed by the bankers and owned by the bankers. Corporations have owners, businesses and government serve their corporate owners.
A Canadian aircraft firm (Canadair) built a version of the P-80 Shooting Star known as the CT-33. The CT-33 used the Rolls Royce Nene engine instead of the Allison turbo jet fitted to the American T-33. A CT-33 was used by Boeing for many years as a photgraghic chase plane. It was retired about 5 years ago.
I met the son of a man who was one of the pilots of the F-80s assigned to Italy and his father told him they were sent there to intercept the German recon jets.
Can you believe we went from those quick-made jets and other prototypes to the F-86 Sabre in less than eight years? The late 40s were probably one of the fastest innovation eras for aircraft in history.
So the big question: *What would be the better jet? The ME 262 or the P-80?* If I remember correctly the ME 262 was slightly faster then the P-80 and had more powerfull armament options. However the P-80 was conciderably more manoverable overall, could retain more energy from a turn (because it had much smaller wings and lower drag), had a supirior climb rate because of its higher horsepower per ton ratio and the 6 nosemounted .50 caliber machineguns of the P-80 were much better suited for air to air combat because they had a much higher velocity(which made it easyer to lead a target with them) and were more accurate then the 4x MK 108 30mm potato launchers which were used on most ME 262s ( MK 108: 540 m/s, M2 Browning: 899 m/s). Aditionaly the P-80 was the first ww2 jet fighter which featured a airbreak which can be used to force an enemy fighter to overshoot by slowing down rapidly. Aditionaly I think the fact that the P-80 was used as a fighter/ atacker untill ~15 years after ww2 by the U.S., that it was used as a trainer by many countrys for such a long time and that most jet fighter still follow its design of a fusulage mounted engine design with wingtip fuel tanks and sidemounted intakes with the nosecone reserved for weapons and camera equipment speaks for itself.
The P-80 was faster in a straight line than the 262, particularly at lower altitudes though this advantage decreased the higher up you went. The 262 could dive faster than the P-80 but that was about the only area it had a real advantage over the American jet. I think on paper the P-80 would have its way with the Messerschmidt but in practice it would have depended and I'm sure the 262 pilots, given time, would developed tactics to compensate for their disadvantages.
I'd have to do a lot of research to say for sure but my guess would be that any initial engagements would probably end up in a draw. The Me-262 pilots were very experienced pilots, like their American and British counterparts, and would have most likely tried to break contact if possible. I'm having difficulty finding the max dive speed of a P-80 but it looks like the max dive speed of a Me-262 was Mach 0.86. Where the P-80 may have had an advantage was attacking the Me-262 on landing approach. The Me-262 was vulnerable to piston engine fighters in this phase of flight. Knowing this, the Luftwaffe had piston powered fighters (usually Fw-190s) performing combat air patrols around the airfields with plenty of flak coverage at the airfield. This made going after a Me-262 reasonably dangerous for a P-51. However, a P-80 could easily out perform the CAP and would have been a difficult target even for the densest of flak gun concentrations.
The P-80 has a better rate of climb,speed, and turning rate. I think it would go to the P-80 hands down. While the 262 was great, it had two old and unreliable engines with unconventional materials dangling off of the wings (less aero).
My girlfriend too u listen more to mark Felton than me! We have argued about this many times! So yeah we're ALL together at most of time BTW my gf is like this 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬😵😡😠😤😤 but me I'm like this 😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😁😁😁😁😁😄😃😀😇😇😇👍 To mark Felton 👍👍👍👍👍👍
“Highlighting how dangerous early jets could be” as Mark correctly points out while I would like to highlight how dangerous early jets were to the test pilots that flew them.
One of the most dangerous jobs was for the German ground crews. They had to fuel the jets with highly corrosive jet fuel. A drop could go through the glove, the boot and into the ground.
Interesting video. I've been a military history buff since high school, and I'm in my 50's. I've seen hundreds of TV and internet documentaries. I've never seen this subject touched. You are 100% correct about most people thinking the Germans were the only ones who had jets in WW2. I myself have always thought the allies didn't develop them until after the war, from seized German jet technology. And if I didn't know this I'm certain the average person doesn't either. Great content, liked and subbed!
NOBODY ACTUALLY FLEW Jets in WWII, They were basically shake-down flights. In my opinion you gotsta have an actual Squadron of Jets to convince anybody you were actually using them. And actually fight with them.
Now, let's be serious...We can't really talk about American jets becoming involved in combat in WW2, as there were no more than 4 of them or so deployed...! As the Brit Gloster Meteor, all the "action" they saw was chasing the slow V-1 bombs as they approached England... Besides, the Meteor was no match for the 262.
'I myself have always thought the allies didn't develop them until after the war, from seized German jet technology' How to say you're American without saying you're American
@@desijrichert Hundreds of German jets flew dozens of combat missions destroying so many American bombers that the USAAF considered stopping day bombing, but keep spouting those hot opinions
I was a Naval aviator in the early 70s. I was a S.L.U.F. Jocky.. A good friend owned a p80 single-seat, He entrusted me to take her up with a 15-minute pass- down on its flight characteristics. What a sweet bird and so operator orientated. More so than any aircraft I have flown. I'm surprised Mark did not mention its characteristics as far as pilot friendly and handling. Grand aircraft after the bugs worked out.. PostScript.. Rest in peace Major Richard Bong..
The P-80 was not the only allied jet with the engine in the fuselage, the De Havilland Vampire, which first flew before the P-80, also had the engine within the fuselage.
@@craigwall9536, the bit the wings attach to is commonly referred to as the fuselage, it doesn’t matter if it’s a long slim thing or a short stubby “pod” it’s still the fuselage.
Great pity that the Yanks demanded the second Halford ( Goblin ) engine after crashing the the first prototype . This held up the development of the great De Havilland Vampire which was ready in early 1944 until late in 1945 . The Vampire with the Goblin engine was a better aircraft than the Meteor( and the P 80 !! having a top speed of over 500mph . Typical Yank demands and threats that they want all the available technology and screw and delay our own developments.
We had a P-80 on display in my hometown, because of our history training both ww1 and ww2 pilots. It was ignored by the city, fell into disrepair, and now sits without a canopy, covered in graffiti, and most of the paint is gone. This at least, was a few years ago last I saw it. I hope they treat it better now.
The truth was that everybody had a jet fighter towards the end of WW2. The only reason the German's fielded the Me262 so early was out of desperation and while their introduction was shocking to the allies, that shock faded as Germany was unable to conduct basic maintenance of the complex aircraft. The introduction of the P-80 pretty much made the Me262 obsolete as the P-80 was nearly 100mph faster than the Me262 and did it with only a single engine.
I've read that the T-33s (and they may have been F-94 Starfires, despite what Wikipedia says about that aircraft's retirement date)) were used as "squadron hacks." Officers, mostly higher ranking ones, used them to commute to other bases for meetings, etc. This kept up their flight time/proficiancy. (Speculation: this may also have kept their hours up enough to maintain their flight pay.)
Thank you very much, Mark, for your inspiring videos and stories. I read a lot about WW2, but you add significant knowledge, for which I am grateful! Best regards from the Netherlands!
Also designed the P-38 Lightning. A plane that was well ahead of its time and revolutionary. First AC to reach 400MPH in level flight. Imagine how much better it would have performed with Rolls Merlin engines. It is my understanding that the Allison's were prone to catastrophic engine failures as in blowing piston walls.
@keith moore Better check your info again there Keith. "The Corsair was designed and operated as a carrier-based aircraft, which entered service in large numbers with the U.S. Navy in late 1944 and early 1945". "The P-38 was the first American fighter to make extensive use of stainless steel and smooth, flush-riveted butt-jointed aluminum skin panels. It was also the first military airplane to fly faster than 400 mph (640 km/h) in level flight."
@keith moore "The P-38 was the only fighter to make it into combat during World War II with turbo-supercharged V-1710s. The operating conditions of the Western European air war - flying for long hours in intensely cold weather at 30,000 feet (9,100 m) - revealed several problems with these engines. These had a poor manifold fuel-air distribution and poor temperature regulation of the turbo-supercharger air, which resulted in frequent engine failures (detonation occurred as the result of persistent uneven fuel-air mixture across the cylinders caused by the poor manifold design)". You need to work on your memory there Mr Keith.
Thank you, Mark Felton. Job well done. I flew RF-80A's, 15th TRS, 363rd TRG, 67th Tac Recon Wing, out of Kimpo in 1953. None of our A's had ejection seats. We had 4 that had not been upgraded to hot canopies. Try to crank it open, set full nose-down trim, unfasten the set belt and let go of the stick. Flying fighters at this stage of development was a very high risk activity.
mark great info confirming my dad story. He was ground safety officer HQ-HQ 1st BAD Burtonwood 10/1943- 4/1946 and he told the family that we had jets in WWII. no one belived him. you confirmed his story. now i can belive his other comments about his ride along experiences.
It's very disconcerting to push the throttle forward and wait for a lifetime before the power comes up. Remember the problems with surge? I would think the early carrier jocks all had a death wish!
In the 1960s French fighter jet TV drama series "The Aeronauts", the Shooting Star was often the unidentified baddy that had to be intercepted and shot down.
My hometown in northern California has a small airport that was quite active in the 1990s. Some T-33s were stationed there at the time, and I remember seeing them perform takeoffs and flyovers as a kid. One of the few surviving planes is now an exhibit at the local air museum.
P-80 jets, or the trainer version, were still being used as US Air Force General's private jets in the 1980s. I went to an Air Force air show in the 1980s and there was a P-80 on the field. I asked one of the crew what a P-80 was still doing in the Air Force, he said " It is the General's private plane."
Nice job Mark. As a kid I played with plastic Shooting Stars in the sandbox. If you have ever heard one scream by at an airshow the sound is mesmerizing! Keep up the great work!
was a T-33 pilot in the 80s in the ANG. we had four. tasked to fly one to Kelly where it was turned over to the Uraguay Air Force. a few years afterward at Peterson Field encountered the Skyfox. It was the T-33 with two twin turbo fans, faired over intakes (fuel cells) a Martin Baker seat and new avionics. the test pilot told me there was only one limitation. The T=33 listed 3, 505K, ,9M ond aileron buzz. These were max limiting airspeeds. After Lockheed had made that beauty in 50 years they could not overcome the aileron buzz.
A line of P-80s sits in an impact area in Ft. Irwin, California near Goldstone and China Lake. They sit like a squadron on a runway and have been shot up in air to ground gunnery practice. I saw them while touring the back ranges with my friend who was on staff there in the late 1980s.
I remember my father telling me once that after the war his squadron was waiting to be discharged, but there was a delay, then another delay. He said they found out later Command was deciding on whether to make his squadron the first jet squadron. The final decision was NO, and it never occurred to me to find out which fighter he would have been assigned. I see now it was probably the P-80. (His squadron was flying P-38s at the time.)
A most enjoyable episode indeed. The Shooting Star was a clean looking 1st generation Jet , I think it was around 50 mph slower in top speed than the Me 262. Would have been most interesting to see it go head to head with the infamous German Horten Ho 229 twin Jet / Pure Flying Wing!
The Horten IX has major aerodynamic issues, it can not be flown safely in hard aerobatics. This means, it can not be used as a fighter without major reconstruction of the overall layout. There is quite a large number of flying wing enthusiasts in rc modelling. Some of them are aerodynamics engineers with decades of experience in developing flying wings, including high quality calculation and simulation software and the whole theoretic background. The physics are the same, no matter how big the airplane is. The only difference is, that you an not scale the air. The molecules have their size and they allways act the same. When a flying model gets smaller, Reynolds numbers get lower. That's why a bigger plane flys better than a very small plane. What works well in small scale, does work at least as good when you scale it up. This means, what flys well as a modell, usually flys at least as well in full size. The Horten IX is the only Horten, that has huge stability issues, no matter what they do to improve the design and no matter in which scale the model is built. No matter how the airfoil or the twist in the wing is changed, the problem is never solved well enough for hard aerobatic oder combat style flying. This wing plan view simply does not work very well as a pure flying wing. Every other Horten (except for the Horten X project, that is completely unflyable in its 1945 layout) makes a really great and safe flying model, but not the IX. You have to ad a vertical fin under the tail of the center section to ged rid of the stability issues and make it into a safe flying model. The only way to get stability without a vertical fin is to greatly modify the wing plan view. With the original wing plan view, aerobatics are extremely dangerous because it stalls and spins without warning, when it is pushed over its limits. Of course this does not mean, the design is complete rubbish. As long as you are careful with the angle of attack, with stalling in general and with side slipping and never push the limits, it actually is a nice flying airplane and it is quite a fast airplane. It can not be used as a fighter, but most probably it is usable as a fast high altitude recce plane with higher speed, greater range and, due to its lower wing loading, higher service ceiling than the Ar 234.
I remember watching Mark Felton's WW2 documentaries on Saturday and Sunday mornings when I was like 6 or 7 and it's so cool to find him after all these years still pumping out the same content on TH-cam, I'm 25 now, it's really cool to have grown up with your stuff. You're right up there with R Lee Ermey when it comes to WW2 content. God Rest that man's soul. Thank you for being so passionate Mark Felton.
My USAF Flight School class (66-G) flying out of Craig AFB, Selma, AL, flew the T-33 version. Craig AFB was the last school to have T-33s, the others had T-38s. Our tip tanks did not hang under the wingtip, they were mounted on the tip. The limiting airspeed included airspeed, Mach and "aileron buzz or disintegration whichever occurs first". I got to aileron buzz while descending from 40,000 feet (where I was passed by an airliner). 12 seconds from idle to full power and 30 seconds from ignition to full power. I really enjoyed the T-33.
ME-262 vs.P-80=1 toasted P-80. The ME-262 with TWO Jumo engines had a much superior climb rate, superior agility, superior dive rate, and top-end speed, and more experienced pilots with actual JET combat experience.
@@R.U.1.2. P-80 Performance Maximum speed: 594 mph (956 km/h, 516 kn) at sea level Range: 825 mi (1,328 km, 717 nmi) Service ceiling: 46,800 ft (14,300 m) Rate of climb: 6,870 ft/min (34.9 m/s) Thrust/weight: 0.364 ME-262 Performance Maximum speed: 900 km/h (560 mph, 490 kn) Range: 1,050 km (650 mi, 570 nmi) Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,570 ft) Rate of climb: 20 m/s (3,900 ft/min) at max weight of 7,130 kg (15,720 lb) Thrust/weight: 0.28 P-80>ME-262
As I said in another channel, the T-33 was not called Shooting Star, it was called Silver Star. If the two seat trainer was a conversion of the single seat fighter it would have been called a TF-80 Shooting Star, however it was a separate development warranting its own designation and name.
Fascinating as always Mark to hear about the often untold technology advances in ww2. One of the big problems with the Me-262 and other German jet engines was the service life, and cost of maintenance of these technological marvels. Something the British had an advantage of, with accessibility to key materials such as cobalt and nickel SUGGESTION - little is told about how the WW2 powers obtained materials to manufacture their weapons of war - would be great to hear about this. Keep up the great work!
I ran into a boneyard P-80 out behind the American Heritage Museum. It was in poor shape, with the .50's used over and the engines removed, but it was still cool nonetheless.
That’s correct! And there was the night fighter version, the F-94 Starfire, a two-seat radar-equipped night fighter that claimed six kills over Korea, including the first jet-on-jet engagement at night versus a MiG-15.
Another great "What if Encounter" of WW2 anywhere over/in Europe - production numbers always will win is my thoughts on the outcome. Cheers and stay safe.
Good point about production numbers - the Germans were way ahead, but by that point were struggling as their industries were being bombed and materials running out. The Americans still had their war production going full speed, and fairly soon would have had these things coming out by the hundreds, as they did with P-51s and other aircraft. Had the war gone on a few more months the Americans could have eclipsed the Germans in jet numbers. Also helps that the P-80 required a single fairly simple to manufacture centrifugal-flow jet engine, while each Me 262 required two more complicated axial-flow engines. I would still suspect the Me 262 was probably the more advanced, superior aircraft, but as you say production numbers can overcome that. This was probably true of most US versus German designs, the German designs were probably usually superior, but good design couldn't make up for production capacity.
@@johnburns4017 You mean the Jumos? I don't know how they compared with the centrifugal flow engines, but I do get the sense they're more tempramental. All early jets of either type were, the video describing how many P-80s were lost to accidents shows how troublesome they were, and in turn how dangerous aircraft powered by them were.
@@johnburns4017 Also a matter of building what they could, given their lack of alloying metals, which denied them the option of building better/more advanced...
I won't name the other channel, but I recently saw a video on WWII war planes which was so full of errors and inconsistencies that it's main effect on me has been that I gained even more respect for Dr Felton. It shows that if you want to learn something ask an expert.
For those of you wondering if a P-80 (or F-80 as I call it) and a Me262 fought, the most likely winner would actually be the P-80 due to its higher maneuverability thanks to its straight wings. I know this because Combat Flight Simulators are a passion of mine and this exact scenario is one I run alot in IL2 1946. Yes the Me262 wins every now and then but only because it had the altitude advantage or it got a lucky shot off, its slower acceleration and somewhat sluggish nature especially at lower speeds means that if a P-80s pilot is vigilant they can dance all around the Me262. Also I should mention another factor hurting the Me262 in these scenarios is the fact that unlike most other sims IL2 1946 also models engine reliability and vulnerability to pilot error (at least for Jets), and half the time the reason the P-80s win is because the Me262's engines catch fire and explode due to poor quality.
Yay Il-2s best! I expect it's true that the P-80 would be better in a dogfight, but if you want to chew through a formation of B-17s it's the '262 every time for me
I'm often amazed by the fact that WWII saw both canvas biplanes and jet fighters on the air.
In the same way the WW1 saw both horseback cavalry charges and tanks and aircraft. War makes innovation look easy
So did Korea; the North Koreans were still using the old Polikarpov Po-2s for night nuisance raids (commonly known to US Troops as Bed Check Charlie), right up to the armistice. World War 2 also saw a few horseback charges, mainly in Poland and in China, and the first TV-guided drones and first weapons to definitively cross the 62-mile line into space. (There are arguments about whether WW1's Paris Gun did or didn't get quite that high, but the V2 sure did). And the early phases of the US war against the Taliban in 2002 saw horse-mounted US Special Forces calling in airstrikes via satellite.)
@Marco D'Magnifico Wise decision, because the reconnaissance UAVs were often followed by air strikes.
@Marco D'Magnifico They surrendered to the model planes because they knew what their appearance foreshadowed. One Iraqi armour unit commander was asked why he surrendered without a fight. His answer was "the damn B-52's". When it was stated that his unit had not been attacked by the bombers, his answer was "Yes I know that, but I saw one that had been".
Gravity bombs to ballistic missiles, ground spotters to radar technology, bolt actions to selective fire rifles. It really is the most fascinating, albeit terrible, war when it comes to military advances.
I was a crew chief in the USAF in the 60's and worked on the P-80 and AT-33, the AT-33 was a T-33 with guns and bomb racks. I laughed every year when we had to do a "termite inspection" yearly as the floor of the jet was wooden. During Viet Nam the AF decided to try to convert an AT-33 to carry a Vulcan 20 MM gun pod for close ground support. We modified it to mount a gun pod on the centerline rack and took it to the borescope gun range where we jacked it and retracted the nose gear. We had to pump the gear struts up to give clearance. The gun fired great. The jet flew on a test flight to Gila Bend Az. range to test the gun. The acft came back on an emergency and it was parked by me and the canopy was still down. I had to open the canopy and saw that the pilot was very upset, he told me that when he hit the gun the recoil from the gun almost stopped the jet in flight. He said some other things but I can't put them here. Oh well we tried.
The recoil on the GAU in the A-10 is almot equal to the thrust of its engines.
@@galenhaugh3158 Yeah, we were crew chiefs on F-4 fighters that used the same gun and we knew that there would be problems but the "expert" engineers that were from the USAF thought different. The engineers usually don't listen to lowly mechanics so I learned through my career in the AF. We were told to take the gun off. One of the guys drew a cartoon of a T-33 with a Hound dog missile (from a B-52) on the centerline. We were told to not do that anymore by the commander although he was smiling.
@@galenhaugh3158 I believe they fixed this on the A10 by inserting inert cartridges every so many rounds
This sounds hilarious and really cool at the same time, do you have any pictures?
@@derekadair7522 No, we weren't allowed to take pictures on the flight line, the F-4's were secret and the U-2's were top secret. The T-33's were right next to them. I do think that that flight is embedded in that pilots memory for ever, I wish I had a picture of him when I opened the canopy.
The all-too familiar story of early jets: lost in a crash, lost in a crash, lost in a crash, lost in an accident, lost in a crash...
May I remind you of the DC-10?
.....used as target drones...
@@letoubib21 & 737Max ;) Must say I have a huge amount of respect for the fellows who tested these primitive jets. Them and WW1 pilots.
Development pre-computer simulation era. Everything was developed this way. We just don't care about it. Price of progress, I guess...
The same was true for most early advanced propeller aircraft of the war. Some were exceptional right out of the starting gate and some had teething problems.
My dad had 8 hrs in the T33 before he washed out of flight school. One of the high points of his life. On his deathbed, flying on synthetic morphine, he described to me a waking dream....turning in formation in the T33, high above Lackland air base. I salute you, Pop.
Yeager commented in his book that the ME262 and P80 had very similar flight characteristics. However, I should add that I read his book back when it was published in the mid-1980s. I don't trust my memory, but this was one of the things I most recall about his book.
I inherited the book just recently so I'm going to have to go back and read it now to confirm
History Channel: We got Pawn Stars and Ice Road Truckers!
Everyone else: We got Dr. Mark Felton.
Don’t forget Ancient Aliens!
True that. Can't remember the last time I watched the Hist Channel.
History and Discovery channels are huge disappointments.
The last time I watched the History Channel it was actually a channel and it actually ran programs about history. That shows how long it's been since I watched the History Channel.😋
What would have happened if the P80 Shooting Star had encountered the ME262? It probably would’ve crashed..
For one thing, the Americans had not yet adopted they swept mine concept that the Germans had figured out in their wind tunnel research. This was one theory proposed as to the instability of the P80 at its top speed.
From my readings... after the war both of the inventors of the jet engine met, German and British. They shared information with each other and were amazed to find out they both reached the same conclusion via different design routes. One of those rare times in history where simultaneous inventions take place with neither person aware of the others work. They became close friends, working together on projects well into their latter years.
Nearly but not quite? Post war, Von Ohain later admitted that he was aware of Whittle's work and had studied his patent. Although he had already started on his own path by the time he saw them. I believe Eric Brown also mentions this in one of his interviews as he obviously knew Whittle.
And then we gave the engine to the Soviets and the US nicked it. British desperation and naivety in the late war and post war 😞
That happens quite intense, actually. There is even a common phrase that parallels it: great minds think alike.
Crazy they flew till 1997 in active service. Trainer or not that's a hugely impressive lifespan.
I can hear the B=52 now: "Am I a joke to you?!"
@@CB-mn4lf This is not a competition. We can appreciate all the aircraft without putting any down. And for a fighter jet this IS impressive.
What about the B 52?
@Suðringa o Impressive comment, it got me thinking.
I think there was a meteor that was used to test ejection seats and only was retired recently
Random fact: Mark's grandfather was a British soldier who fought in the Burma front of WWII. He said so himself in a community post a little while back. Just something for new viewers that I thought you'd find interesting. :)
The VJ day post I see says it was his grandfather. (Unless there are multiple posts)
He must have gone through some tough times. My dad was conscripted in 1944 and was sent for jungle training - he was going to be dispatched to Burma and he said he was absolutely terrified. Luckily he was re-assigned to a fuel supply team, worked on fuel supply projects for the Normandy landings and was eventually posted to Greece
Many grandfathers probably fought, mine WW1 and WW2. I would have loved now to talk to him about his experiences, but most i remember him, hands on face , elbows on knees staring at the floor. I wonder what he was thinking. This was back in 70's. I'm now 60, i think more of the past than the present.
So did my father. What he experienced affected him for the rest if his life.
Ty
It's a shame that America's highest scoring ace of all time, Richard Bong, died test piloting a P-80 on August 6th, 1945.
His crash site is about a mile from my home in Burbank. As it turns out, this is not a "fun fact" to bring up at parties.
Sad deal
@Derek Davis Huh?
Heh!!
@Derek Davis right! How many pics of his P38 I've seen. I should have remembered.
RIP Dick Bong.
America's Ace of Aces with the greatest name ever bestowed on a human being.
A legendary name for a legendary man.
@Prison Planet Earth He was the highest scoring WW2 ace who flew P-38’s and became a test pilot after the war who died while flying the p-80.
Major Richard Bong if you please....
@@apenza4304 i believe he died before the war ended in his accident?
@@apenza4304 He died shortly *before* V-J Day *. . .*
Crazy how your videos feel more like a full production rather than just a YT vid. Thanks for your amazing work!
Ikr its amazing its better then multi billion channels such as the history channel which keeps repeating them selfs to extend time
Because they are PACKED with interesting content, instead of lingering on fancy-yet-repetitive graphics, boring re-caps and endless commercials.
@@davidwilliams5749 agreed, and also I feel that it's really unique stories and new fresh untold stories from different perspectives. With the same staccato delivery from Mark.
It’s called “MARK FELTON PRODUCTION” for a reason!! @vuk stAjic!! MARK IS THE MAN!! Always wonderful content!
@Derek Davis Yes aware of this, that's exactly where my comment came from. That he alone carries that full production value into his YT vids.
My father and his crew assembled these 2 shooting stars in Italy. He said they were amazing. He never mentioned anything about a shoot down mission.
For myself, and many others, a T-33 ride was our first time in a jet cockpit. What a memory.
A classmate of mine once hit the wrong switch on that ride, and kicked off the wing tanks over Tinker AFB.
My dad was an Air Force fighter pilot. He was an instructor pilot for a time in the T-33. In fact, the picture shown is my dad getting into his T-33 as a Capt/Instructor in Texas where my mom met him. Miss you dad! He served over 30 years. Starting on the F-86, F-102 and 106, Forward Air Controller in Vietnam in OV-10s, 10 years in SAC flying B-52s and KC-135s, then back to OV-10s in Germany. Finishing with the B-1 Bombers in Kansas before retiring.
As a pilot I once met an old man on the golf course in Brunswick GA. He said he was a pilot too . He said he was the LSO on the USS Langly. He also said his last assignments were to fly the P-80 at the airport In Brunswick. He said it was a Navy airstrip during the war. He looked pretty old but…while we spoke he came alive …and appeared grow “younger “ the more we spoke of his fighter pilot days.
Don't forget one of the best jet out of WW2, the D.H. Vampire which first flew in Sept 1943 and were in production before the end of the war. By the way it had the engine within the fuselage.
P80 with the wing tanks is straight ICONIC
The best reference to jets in history is Chuck Yeager. "The first time I saw a jet, I shot it down."
Chuck Yeager was a badass! Not scared by going fast either!
May he rest in peace
And Chuck Yeager said, “Bud Anderson is the best fighter pilot I’ve ever seen.”
Also said PAF has best pilots
A german FW190 Pilot: The first time I saw Chuck Yeager, I shot him down
My local college rescued one from the shredder. Restored it, flew it around for a few years then put it on display out front of the local airport. They did a great job on it. There's still quite a lot of them in private hands that are air worthy.
we have one here in front of b.g.s.u. airport here in bowling green ohio,been there for decades
Lots of T-33's are still airworthy but, sadly, no P/F-80's.
I know they did combat with monsters and aliens in the 50's sci-fi flicks.
And decorated with Red Stars against Sabres in "Jet Pilot" *. . . ;-)*
Yes, they starred against Godzilla in the early days.
@@Mondo762 got in a couple of hits in the first Godzilla. Made Godzilla call it a night..👺✈️😂
@@madisntit6547 Yippee Ki Yay...👍😂
@@letoubib21 You probably already know, but Howard Hughes spent so much time editing and re-editing the flying scenes (7 years), the planes were obsolete by the time he was finished and the movie was released.
I got a look at the manual for a P-80 once. One of the illustrations in it was an artist conception of p-80s defending B-29s from zeros.
Cool! :)
Amazing how quickly humans went from piston engines to jets.
Wartime is an efficient driver of innovation.
@@alejandrayalanbowman367 oh I know. Still amazing to see. Just like how USA went to the moon from scratch in 10 years
Imo it's especially amazing how fast aviation evolved during WW1. Plane designs often were obsolete after only a few weeks.
@@legiox3719 that's what they want you to think. The Nazis where on the moon first we stole their technology.
Went from Sopwith Camel to Saturn V in 51 years
During the Korean war, Australian pilots flying the Gloster Meteor F8 against the superior MIG15 had a song; 'all I want for Christmas is my wing swept back'.
Not likely. That song is from "The Music Man", which did not appear on stage until 1957.
I found all kinds of sources for this and it's most likely based on a rhyme from Dickens 'a tale of two cities'
Thanks for sharing, mate. 👍🏻
Seems pretty obvious to me. A boozer rewording of the children's song 'All I Want For Christmas Is My Two Front Teeth.' Cant imagine Dickens or some stage musical years after the war ended had anything to do with it?
@@edwardd9702 yeah, you're absolutely right. Cheers mate!
@@edwardd9702 The song was originally recorded by spike jones in 1947.
I'm so glad I found this channel. I have been fascinated by ww2 since I was a boy and my grandfather would tell me about battles. I have never watched any documentaries with a better narrator. Mark is a natural and I've watched thousands of documentaries. Thank you so much Dr. Felton
Mark Felton is much, much more than a narrator, but yes, he is a wonderful narrator. He is also a very highly respected author. I love his writing style.
The P-80 Shooting Star was a great jet in its day. The F-94 Starfire was developed from the T-33 and the F-80 Shooting Star. Lockheed has built great aircraft since its inception from the beautiful P-38 Lightenings of WW2 to the current day F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II. My late father flew the P-80, the T-33, the F-94 and the F-104 in his career in the Air Corps and the U.S.A.F.
They would have flown past each other very quickly.... greetings from NYC!
And given each other a thumbs up.
I grew up with T33's flying overhead in Nova Scotia. Such a pretty aircraft.
Had one of these on a concrete pedestal at the decommissioned CFB Cornwallis, but was removed a few years ago. Not sure where it went.
I'm getting tears for you Dr. Felton. You now reached the million mark. A feat that is so hard to achieve to history based channels on TH-cam. Also, I'm so proud to say that I am one of the early subscriber of your Channel ever since you reached 10k subscribers. It's a privilege to listen to a history geek like you to a now a graduate of BA in History like me.
I don't understand how Mark is plopping out so many quality videos on steady short period. I assume there is a few people working together, but the amount of research being done in such a speed is incredible.
There's a big chance there's only one person doing it. A lot of this information can be found from the internet if you really look for it, and assuming he makes his living from this he would have the time for research. Getting the ideas for relevant/interesting video topics is the hardest part
Fast as a 262!
Thanks for Featuring my great uncle Frank Whittle! Woohoo!! His legacy lives on in my family with careers in AeroSpace and hobby of building and flying planes. (I also just got the new Microsoft Flight Sim). Keep up the great videos, Mark!
You're from an illustrious line. Make sure your kids and grand kids learn all about him.
I read a book, a few years ago, about his invention and development of the jet engine, and I must say that it certainly didn't seem like he was given very much help to start with, whereas the Germans saw its potential and invested in research quite early on.
@@jerribee1 FUN FACT: Ohain, the inventor of the German jet engine, read Whittle's patents and copied them. Whilst Whittle was begging for funding, Ohain received generous state funding before the war. Then the funding was reduced because Hitler believed the war would be over and won before the jet engine would enter service. The Whittle design was superior to the German imitation.
In modern jet flight, we owe everything to the genius of Frank Whittle. It cannot be overstated.
@@DestryAlecto Agreed.
The Canadian training version the CT-133 Silver Star was retired in 2005. There is still two that flies out of London Ontario.
LOL! Now, that's embarrassing... Tom, thought you wouldn't tell anybody.
@Tom L Don't listen to Eskimo Buddha. That's not embarrassing, that kind of longevity is a testimonial to good old American workmanship (the quality if which we foolishly allowed to slack off and become "planned obsolescence" in the decades that followed) and your Canadian ground crew's ability to keep it in good repair.
I hope that the caretaker of the still operational CT-133 passes it on to a group that can keep it in the air for the next millennium.
@@pauld6967 Except that we used British engines and built the airframes ourselves. That said it was a US design and probably a lot of critical subcomponents would have come from the US.
Unfortunately the Canadian air force mechanics have had excessive experience keeping veteran aircraft serviceable. In this case, if you build 600 of something you can scavenge parts for a long time before you get down to the last couple of dozen.
@@HweolRidda Ah, built under license then? I admit, I had not considered that. 🙂
Martin Baker still has a Meteor in service to test ejection seats- a type that first flew in WW2 as described in this video.
The trainer version of the F-80, the T-33, retired from the Turkish Air Force in 1997, after a 46-year-long service. As a kid in the early '90's, I'd watch the Shooting Stars perform basic aerial maneuvers above Bandirma, Turkey. As a 36-year old man, I find it pretty exciting to have witnessed one of the earliest jet-powered fighters (albeit a training derivative) fly actively. The same goes for the C-47, which flew in TuAF until as recently as 1998.
Only jet I ever flew was the T trainer he mentioned, it was so low powered but smooth and beautifully aerodynamic, probably the easiest thing I've ever flown, a twin engine prop is more tedious than it was, a real treat
My father flew P-80's in the Korean War. Always been a favorite of mine.
@A D I love them too but I wouldn't like to be in a crash in a old car.
@@Jack-kq3ty Or in a jet, for that matter.
I've seen my share of T-33's until the 1990's. They looked and flew wonderfully. That proves the success of the design. Thanks for yet another excellent upload, Mark.
As a child I played with a shooting star in the back seat of a car during a vacation drive to Fla.
How many times did it crash?
Same. Rear facing seat of a 70s olds station wagon. Shooting Stars were penciled all over notebooks when bored in school.
I had a B-58 Hustler.
As a child I played with a light blue plastic Shooting star. At the age of < 5 I didnt know about jet engines so I supposed the nose cone belonged to a propeller so I flew it with the noise brrrr... brrr.... brrrrr...
As a boy I built a plastic model and hung it from my bedroom ceiling with some others. Later, I flew military for thirty years all in Army helicopters.
I worked as an Avionics Technician on the T-33 from 1982-1988 at Tyndall AFB. I have many back seat hours on this fun plane. It was a very good trainer. Two of them are at the Air and Space Museums in DC and Virginia, and I worked on both of them back in the day.
To cool we where there at the same time. Good old 95 AMU. Loaded ECM pods and run and taxi for engine shop. To bad he didn't show one short stacked. Go Bone Heads.
Thank you for this. A testament to the brilliant engineers & technicians of the Lockheed Skunk Works. As a tech in the Canadian Forces during the Cold War, I had the privilege of working on the successor of the P-80, the 2 seat CT-133 Silver Star. This aircraft certainly deserves a follow up video, hint, hint. The Canadian T-33 was built under license by Canadair in Montreal & was fitted with the more powerful Rolls Royce Nene 10 powerplant vs the US Allison powered version. Some were supplied to Bolivia, France, Greece, Turkey & Portugal. A number of civilian registered CT-133's fly to this day. Boeing recently retired 2 Canadair CT-133 aircraft used as chase planes. They rate right up there in longevity & robustness with the venerable Douglas DC-3, even though roles & design differ, fighter/trainer vs cargo/passenger.
Extraordinary and beautiful aircraft in the "Art Deco" style. To think this (from memory) went from scratch to first flight in about 145 days. Clarence "Kelly" Johnson and his "Skunk Works" (a curtained off area where none but the small crew of engineers and fabricators could go into) from the " Lil Abner" Comic Strip of the era, is to me one of the most romantic stories of Aircraft design of WWII. 6,000 miles away from the combat zone, in sunny California, these men and women designed another of the line that stretched back via Altair, Electra, Hudson, P38 and Constellation, and would go onward to Starfigher, U2, and Galaxy, And the generosity De Havilland showed, in removing and shipping out the second Goblin taken from the Vampire, after Lockheed had run the P80 up against advice and sucked the thin intake ducts in to the engine, destroying it, shows that for the USA and the UK "Blood is thicker than Water". This a wonderful story about a beautiful aircraft. Thanks for the Video.
It was an exciting time for jets.
Sr71? Yf12a?
I'm not seeing 1930s Art Deco in the P-80. Whatchoo bin smokin'?
@@edgarcook9607 The general shape, if you will. Like one of those streamlined trains.
The second I hear "Lockheed" I'm like "Ah, understandable" because they almost always go beyond expectations, and budget lol
Lockheed (and others of interest) will be owned by China soon or at the very least infiltrated to get "eyes" on any developments.
China has been conquering by acquisition rather than war. It is more cost effective and less detectable.
General Electric second largest arm the GE Appliances is now Chinese owned.
The next home appliance you buy is not only made in China but the brand itself is Chinese owned. Because you paid for it you are also funding Chinese interest.
Probably not easy to budget when you are creating the most innovative aircraft for 50 years straight
@@crxdelsolsir let me check who asked about China... nobody??? Shocker
Bear Grylls The P-80 the most innovative aircraft?
@@crxdelsolsir ~ One world communism/fascist government through corporations, including incorporated government. All countries are in debt to global banking system.
The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender. Proverbs 22:7
Communist China is financed by the bankers and owned by the bankers. Corporations have owners, businesses and government serve their corporate owners.
Your ability to uncover little known facts about historical military events never ceases to amaze Dr. Felton!
A Canadian aircraft firm (Canadair) built a version of the P-80 Shooting Star known as the CT-33. The CT-33 used the Rolls Royce Nene engine instead of the Allison turbo jet fitted to the American T-33. A CT-33 was used by Boeing for many years as a photgraghic chase plane. It was retired about 5 years ago.
The P80 had such a clean and aerodynamic design. Arguably the best looking of the WWII jets.
Really was. They had a wingless fuselage on display at Sun and Fun in Florida you could sit in, and it was amazing how narrow the frontal profile was
I met the son of a man who was one of the pilots of the F-80s assigned to Italy and his father told him they were sent there to intercept the German recon jets.
...something they never did.
@@rainbowseeker5930 Or at least that they officially never did.
The very fact that these missions are still classified leads me to suspect that they very well may (Unofficially) have...we'll probably never know
Can you believe we went from those quick-made jets and other prototypes to the F-86 Sabre in less than eight years? The late 40s were probably one of the fastest innovation eras for aircraft in history.
So the big question: *What would be the better jet? The ME 262 or the P-80?*
If I remember correctly the ME 262 was slightly faster then the P-80 and had more powerfull armament options.
However the P-80 was conciderably more manoverable overall, could retain more energy from a turn (because it had much smaller wings and lower drag), had a supirior climb rate because of its higher horsepower per ton ratio and the 6 nosemounted .50 caliber machineguns of the P-80 were much better suited for air to air combat because they had a much higher velocity(which made it easyer to lead a target with them) and were more accurate then the 4x MK 108 30mm potato launchers which were used on most ME 262s ( MK 108: 540 m/s, M2 Browning: 899 m/s).
Aditionaly the P-80 was the first ww2 jet fighter which featured a airbreak which can be used to force an enemy fighter to overshoot by slowing down rapidly.
Aditionaly I think the fact that the P-80 was used as a fighter/ atacker untill ~15 years after ww2 by the U.S., that it was used as a trainer by many countrys for such a long time and that most jet fighter still follow its design of a fusulage mounted engine design with wingtip fuel tanks and sidemounted intakes with the nosecone reserved for weapons and camera equipment speaks for itself.
I've flown in the backseat of a T-33, as a ROTC cadet; I can attest to their maneuverability.
The P-80 was faster in a straight line than the 262, particularly at lower altitudes though this advantage decreased the higher up you went. The 262 could dive faster than the P-80 but that was about the only area it had a real advantage over the American jet. I think on paper the P-80 would have its way with the Messerschmidt but in practice it would have depended and I'm sure the 262 pilots, given time, would developed tactics to compensate for their disadvantages.
I'd have to do a lot of research to say for sure but my guess would be that any initial engagements would probably end up in a draw. The Me-262 pilots were very experienced pilots, like their American and British counterparts, and would have most likely tried to break contact if possible. I'm having difficulty finding the max dive speed of a P-80 but it looks like the max dive speed of a Me-262 was Mach 0.86.
Where the P-80 may have had an advantage was attacking the Me-262 on landing approach. The Me-262 was vulnerable to piston engine fighters in this phase of flight. Knowing this, the Luftwaffe had piston powered fighters (usually Fw-190s) performing combat air patrols around the airfields with plenty of flak coverage at the airfield. This made going after a Me-262 reasonably dangerous for a P-51. However, a P-80 could easily out perform the CAP and would have been a difficult target even for the densest of flak gun concentrations.
The P-80 has a better rate of climb,speed, and turning rate. I think it would go to the P-80 hands down. While the 262 was great, it had two old and unreliable engines with unconventional materials dangling off of the wings (less aero).
@@chrisgoshey7388 Remember P-80 continue to be improved AFTER the war with better and more powerfull engine. Which variant top speed did you use?
My girlfriend hears Felton theme: "I feel like Mark Felton is the third person in our relationship".
Me: 😃
My girlfriend too u listen more to mark Felton than me! We have argued about this many times! So yeah we're ALL together at most of time
BTW my gf is like this 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬😵😡😠😤😤 but me I'm like this 😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😁😁😁😁😁😄😃😀😇😇😇👍
To mark Felton 👍👍👍👍👍👍
@@rjs1jd I didn't think I'd be the only one 😂😂😂
@@markwood599 hahaahha same
What are you suggesting lol
You make my day... i'm still laughing..!!!😂😂
Great history thanks for the video! @3:18, the jet's name was "Lulu-Belle" that was the name of Bogart's tank in the film Sahara!
I saw this movie as a kid in the 60s but couldn't remember the title. Thanks. Now I can look it up for a rewatch.
"...but I'll let you argue that one in the comments section below."
You definitely know your audience, my friend.
“Highlighting how dangerous early jets could be” as Mark correctly points out while I would like to highlight how dangerous early jets were to the test pilots that flew them.
@Phil McCrevice. I’ve always thought a pilots life was more precious than their aircraft. Big difference if you’re the pilot.
@@apenza4304 - He means you also forget the poor people on ground that a falling Jet will kill too. It's not uncommon you know.
I assume test pilots have more experience bailing out if necessary. Still, they prob can't get a normal life insur policy.
@@halibut1249 The very first question I was asked when I applied for life insurance was “Do you have a pilots license”.
One of the most dangerous jobs was for the German ground crews. They had to fuel the jets with highly corrosive jet fuel. A drop could go through the glove, the boot and into the ground.
Congratulations on reaching 1M!
1M+
Interesting video. I've been a military history buff since high school, and I'm in my 50's. I've seen hundreds of TV and internet documentaries. I've never seen this subject touched. You are 100% correct about most people thinking the Germans were the only ones who had jets in WW2. I myself have always thought the allies didn't develop them until after the war, from seized German jet technology. And if I didn't know this I'm certain the average person doesn't either. Great content, liked and subbed!
NOBODY ACTUALLY FLEW Jets in WWII, They were basically shake-down flights. In my opinion you gotsta have an actual Squadron of Jets to convince anybody you were actually using them. And actually fight with them.
Now, let's be serious...We can't really talk about American jets becoming involved in combat in WW2, as there were no more than 4 of them or so deployed...! As the Brit Gloster Meteor, all the "action" they saw was chasing the slow V-1 bombs as they approached England... Besides, the Meteor was no match for the 262.
'I myself have always thought the allies didn't develop them until after the war, from seized German jet technology' How to say you're American without saying you're American
@@desijrichert Hundreds of German jets flew dozens of combat missions destroying so many American bombers that the USAAF considered stopping day bombing, but keep spouting those hot opinions
@@paimonpress6760 sorry my friend but a Canadian friend of mine was also under the impression that there were no Allied World War 2 Jets.
I was a Naval aviator in the early 70s. I was a S.L.U.F. Jocky..
A good friend owned a p80 single-seat, He entrusted me to take her up with a 15-minute pass- down on its flight characteristics.
What a sweet bird and so operator orientated. More so than any aircraft I have flown.
I'm surprised Mark did not mention its characteristics as far as pilot friendly and handling.
Grand aircraft after the bugs worked out..
PostScript..
Rest in peace Major Richard Bong..
S.L.U.F.???
The P-80 was not the only allied jet with the engine in the fuselage, the De Havilland Vampire, which first flew before the P-80, also had the engine within the fuselage.
Bull. It didn't _have_ a fuselage. It had a _POD._ A pod and tailbooms.
@@craigwall9536, the bit the wings attach to is commonly referred to as the fuselage, it doesn’t matter if it’s a long slim thing or a short stubby “pod” it’s still the fuselage.
Great pity that the Yanks demanded the second Halford ( Goblin ) engine after crashing the the first prototype . This held up the development of the great De Havilland Vampire which was ready in early 1944 until late in 1945 . The Vampire with the Goblin engine was a better aircraft than the Meteor( and the P 80 !! having a top speed of over 500mph . Typical Yank demands and threats that they want all the available technology and screw and delay our own developments.
@Gary Tarr The US would have let the UK starve to death. There is a reason why the US can cut a better deal.
@Gary Tarr Sorry for trying to help you guys with your war. Next time we'll let Europe finish itself off.
Like a Shooting Star
You appeared before me
Where have you been all my life?
Just flying at 20,000 mph through the void
We had a P-80 on display in my hometown, because of our history training both ww1 and ww2 pilots. It was ignored by the city, fell into disrepair, and now sits without a canopy, covered in graffiti, and most of the paint is gone. This at least, was a few years ago last I saw it. I hope they treat it better now.
Quadrenaro: That is so sad, it should be donated to a museum and restored.
The P-80 was the first expansion Pack I ever bought for Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe.
Now that was an awesome game!
I could listen to you for days. Such a informative great docu story telling voice of the highest caliber.
The truth was that everybody had a jet fighter towards the end of WW2. The only reason the German's fielded the Me262 so early was out of desperation and while their introduction was shocking to the allies, that shock faded as Germany was unable to conduct basic maintenance of the complex aircraft. The introduction of the P-80 pretty much made the Me262 obsolete as the P-80 was nearly 100mph faster than the Me262 and did it with only a single engine.
Just made my Friday night. Thanks professor.
The US taxpayers got their money's worth on the P-80 with T-33 and other variants serving into the 1990s.
And many still serving in minor and third world air forces.
I was in the Air Force in 1971 and we were still using the T-33 and i thought it was really old then......can't believe we still used it into the 90`s
75 years after the end of WWII we have advanced to variants of the DC3.
@Trainwreck727 Hence the continued political success of the Trudeau dynasty... *sigh*
I've read that the T-33s (and they may have been F-94 Starfires, despite what Wikipedia says about that aircraft's retirement date)) were used as "squadron hacks." Officers, mostly higher ranking ones, used them to commute to other bases for meetings, etc. This kept up their flight time/proficiancy. (Speculation: this may also have kept their hours up enough to maintain their flight pay.)
Thanks Mark. With some stick time in the T-33, this brings back memories.
Thank you very much, Mark, for your inspiring videos and stories. I read a lot about WW2, but you add significant knowledge, for which I am grateful! Best regards from the Netherlands!
This channel has top notch content. You're a proper modern day History Channel! You earned a subscriber!
Also the brilliant design of Clarence "Kelly" Johnson.
Cold War Kurt Tank lmao
One brilliant guy.
Also designed the P-38 Lightning. A plane that was well ahead of its time and revolutionary. First AC to reach 400MPH in level flight. Imagine how much better it would have performed with Rolls Merlin engines. It is my understanding that the Allison's were prone to catastrophic engine failures as in blowing piston walls.
@keith moore Better check your info again there Keith. "The Corsair was designed and operated as a carrier-based aircraft, which entered service in large numbers with the U.S. Navy in late 1944 and early 1945".
"The P-38 was the first American fighter to make extensive use of stainless steel and smooth, flush-riveted butt-jointed aluminum skin panels. It was also the first military airplane to fly faster than 400 mph (640 km/h) in level flight."
@keith moore "The P-38 was the only fighter to make it into combat during World War II with turbo-supercharged V-1710s. The operating conditions of the Western European air war - flying for long hours in intensely cold weather at 30,000 feet (9,100 m) - revealed several problems with these engines. These had a poor manifold fuel-air distribution and poor temperature regulation of the turbo-supercharger air, which resulted in frequent engine failures (detonation occurred as the result of persistent uneven fuel-air mixture across the cylinders caused by the poor manifold design)".
You need to work on your memory there Mr Keith.
I love the P-80 it is such a modern design. If you look at later jets like the swedish J-32 you can realy see the influence it had on post war jets.
I flew one of these once. It was a trainer version--the T-33 but, same aircraft.
What was it like?
Thank you, Mark Felton. Job well done. I flew RF-80A's, 15th TRS, 363rd TRG, 67th Tac Recon Wing, out of Kimpo in 1953. None of our A's had ejection seats. We had 4 that had not been upgraded to hot canopies. Try to crank it open, set full nose-down trim, unfasten the set belt and let go of the stick. Flying fighters at this stage of development was a very high risk activity.
mark great info confirming my dad story. He was ground safety officer HQ-HQ 1st BAD
Burtonwood 10/1943- 4/1946 and he told the family that we had jets in WWII. no one belived him. you confirmed his story. now i can belive his other comments about his ride along experiences.
I flew this aircraft in Alaska. Had to be careful when landing, as it took 15 seconds for the engine to pool up from zero.
It's very disconcerting to push the throttle forward and wait for a lifetime before the power comes up. Remember the problems with surge? I would think the early carrier jocks all had a death wish!
Engines spool up on this jet. Makes me wonder if you ever flew one.
@@RSPYC Methinks this was simply a typo.
In the 1960s French fighter jet TV drama series "The Aeronauts", the Shooting Star was often the unidentified baddy that had to be intercepted and shot down.
My hometown in northern California has a small airport that was quite active in the 1990s. Some T-33s were stationed there at the time, and I remember seeing them perform takeoffs and flyovers as a kid. One of the few surviving planes is now an exhibit at the local air museum.
P-80 jets, or the trainer version, were still being used as US Air Force General's private jets in the 1980s.
I went to an Air Force air show in the 1980s and there was a P-80 on the field. I asked one of the crew what a P-80 was still doing in the Air Force, he said " It is the General's private plane."
The history of the first jets is very interesting. Spain took a great leap forward when it received the P80 and F86. Thank you for your work.
The shooting star is one of my favorite early jets. Not sure why but I just love the way that thing looks.
there is just something about that 40's aesthetic. Its the reason I love the B-36.
On my way home from the hospital / surgery yesterday. At least I’ve got three unseen Mark Felton waiting on me at home.
i hope you feel better .
@@smokeybear1597 Thank you!
Get well soon.
@@salr362 Thank you!
Get well soon.
Nice job Mark. As a kid I played with plastic Shooting Stars in the sandbox. If you have ever heard one scream by at an airshow the sound is mesmerizing! Keep up the great work!
was a T-33 pilot in the 80s in the ANG. we had four. tasked to fly one to Kelly where it was turned over to the Uraguay Air Force. a few years afterward at Peterson Field encountered the Skyfox. It was the T-33 with two twin turbo fans, faired over intakes (fuel cells) a Martin Baker seat and new avionics. the test pilot told me there was only one limitation. The T=33 listed 3, 505K, ,9M ond aileron buzz. These were max limiting airspeeds. After Lockheed had made that beauty in 50 years they could not overcome the aileron buzz.
A line of P-80s sits in an impact area in Ft. Irwin, California near Goldstone and China Lake. They sit like a squadron on a runway and have been shot up in air to ground gunnery practice. I saw them while touring the back ranges with my friend who was on staff there in the late 1980s.
I remember my father telling me once that after the war his squadron was waiting to be discharged, but there was a delay, then another delay. He said they found out later Command was deciding on whether to make his squadron the first jet squadron. The final decision was NO, and it never occurred to me to find out which fighter he would have been assigned. I see now it was probably the P-80. (His squadron was flying P-38s at the time.)
A most enjoyable episode indeed. The Shooting Star was a clean looking 1st generation Jet , I think it was around 50 mph slower in top speed than the Me 262. Would have been most interesting to see it go head to head with the infamous German Horten Ho 229 twin Jet / Pure Flying Wing!
The Horten IX has major aerodynamic issues, it can not be flown safely in hard aerobatics. This means, it can not be used as a fighter without major reconstruction of the overall layout.
There is quite a large number of flying wing enthusiasts in rc modelling. Some of them are aerodynamics engineers with decades of experience in developing flying wings, including high quality calculation and simulation software and the whole theoretic background. The physics are the same, no matter how big the airplane is. The only difference is, that you an not scale the air. The molecules have their size and they allways act the same. When a flying model gets smaller, Reynolds numbers get lower. That's why a bigger plane flys better than a very small plane. What works well in small scale, does work at least as good when you scale it up. This means, what flys well as a modell, usually flys at least as well in full size.
The Horten IX is the only Horten, that has huge stability issues, no matter what they do to improve the design and no matter in which scale the model is built. No matter how the airfoil or the twist in the wing is changed, the problem is never solved well enough for hard aerobatic oder combat style flying. This wing plan view simply does not work very well as a pure flying wing. Every other Horten (except for the Horten X project, that is completely unflyable in its 1945 layout) makes a really great and safe flying model, but not the IX. You have to ad a vertical fin under the tail of the center section to ged rid of the stability issues and make it into a safe flying model. The only way to get stability without a vertical fin is to greatly modify the wing plan view.
With the original wing plan view, aerobatics are extremely dangerous because it stalls and spins without warning, when it is pushed over its limits.
Of course this does not mean, the design is complete rubbish. As long as you are careful with the angle of attack, with stalling in general and with side slipping and never push the limits, it actually is a nice flying airplane and it is quite a fast airplane.
It can not be used as a fighter, but most probably it is usable as a fast high altitude recce plane with higher speed, greater range and, due to its lower wing loading, higher service ceiling than the Ar 234.
Other TH-camrs: "Please keep the comments civil"
Mark Felton: "Free for all"
Mark rules!
I remember watching Mark Felton's WW2 documentaries on Saturday and Sunday mornings when I was like 6 or 7 and it's so cool to find him after all these years still pumping out the same content on TH-cam, I'm 25 now, it's really cool to have grown up with your stuff. You're right up there with R Lee Ermey when it comes to WW2 content. God Rest that man's soul. Thank you for being so passionate Mark Felton.
My USAF Flight School class (66-G) flying out of Craig AFB, Selma, AL, flew the T-33 version. Craig AFB was the last school to have T-33s, the others had T-38s. Our tip tanks did not hang under the wingtip, they were mounted on the tip. The limiting airspeed included airspeed, Mach and "aileron buzz or disintegration whichever occurs first". I got to aileron buzz while descending from 40,000 feet (where I was passed by an airliner). 12 seconds from idle to full power and 30 seconds from ignition to full power. I really enjoyed the T-33.
Flew the T-33 as well. Canada was still flying them until just after I retired. (1992) My avatar is a selfie taken in a T-Bird.
It's not always the most advanced plane that wins. Pilots applying their skills are the ones who succeed.
ME-262 vs.P-80=1 toasted P-80. The ME-262 with TWO Jumo engines had a much superior climb rate, superior agility, superior dive rate, and top-end speed, and more experienced pilots with actual JET combat experience.
Yes, but having a better plane helps
That's what I think too...see my comment..⬆️⬆️
@@R.U.1.2. Nope, the US has way too many veteran pilots while the Germans don’t.
@@R.U.1.2.
P-80 Performance
Maximum speed: 594 mph (956 km/h, 516 kn) at sea level
Range: 825 mi (1,328 km, 717 nmi)
Service ceiling: 46,800 ft (14,300 m)
Rate of climb: 6,870 ft/min (34.9 m/s)
Thrust/weight: 0.364
ME-262 Performance
Maximum speed: 900 km/h (560 mph, 490 kn)
Range: 1,050 km (650 mi, 570 nmi)
Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,570 ft)
Rate of climb: 20 m/s (3,900 ft/min) at max weight of 7,130 kg (15,720 lb)
Thrust/weight: 0.28
P-80>ME-262
As I said in another channel, the T-33 was not called Shooting Star, it was called Silver Star. If the two seat trainer was a conversion of the single seat fighter it would have been called a TF-80 Shooting Star, however it was a separate development warranting its own designation and name.
The CT-133 Silver Star was a Canadian-made version with a Rolls Royce engine.
Some Shooting Star's use to come to Jamaica ofter the war mainly at Vernam Field on training missions.
This is my favorite historical channel for indpth stories of such interesting subjects!
Ive been reading WW2 history for 30 years and Mark you keep telling me things Ive never heard of. TY Sir!
Fascinating as always Mark to hear about the often untold technology advances in ww2. One of the big problems with the Me-262 and other German jet engines was the service life, and cost of maintenance of these technological marvels. Something the British had an advantage of, with accessibility to key materials such as cobalt and nickel SUGGESTION - little is told about how the WW2 powers obtained materials to manufacture their weapons of war - would be great to hear about this. Keep up the great work!
I don't care if I am late to work; Mark Felton comes first.
If anyones asks I still made it to work on time.
Contextually speaking why does Mark have that picture with the stormtroopers, just a bit random but cracks me up...
Stormtroopers? Wehrmacht Pt. 2 bodyguards summoned from the most obscure WW2 records ever collected is what you mean.
Looks badass
@Gazza Boo what is thy bidding dark lord...
The stormtroopers? Do you mean the Keystone Cops of Sci Fi?
I ran into a boneyard P-80 out behind the American Heritage Museum. It was in poor shape, with the .50's used over and the engines removed, but it was still cool nonetheless.
My dad, WW2 vet, with 332nd Engineers, worked for GS Patton during Ardennes Campaign...difficult building bridges during Luftwaffe air assaults...
I think the 1st manned jet vs jet kill was by a F-80 against a MiG15 in Korea.
That’s correct! And there was the night fighter version, the F-94 Starfire, a two-seat radar-equipped night fighter that claimed six kills over Korea, including the first jet-on-jet engagement at night versus a MiG-15.
@@dc8flightdeck Well...there ya go... straight winged fighter trumps swept wing... so it follows that of course the P80 would have triumphed...lol
@@vonal67 think more pilot training then plane
@@dc8flightdeck mig 15 far superior to p80
dc8flightdeck That is wrong, the F94 Starfire was it‘s own aircraft...it has some similarities but it‘s not a version of the P80
Another great "What if Encounter" of WW2 anywhere over/in Europe - production numbers always will win is my thoughts on the outcome. Cheers and stay safe.
Good point about production numbers - the Germans were way ahead, but by that point were struggling as their industries were being bombed and materials running out. The Americans still had their war production going full speed, and fairly soon would have had these things coming out by the hundreds, as they did with P-51s and other aircraft. Had the war gone on a few more months the Americans could have eclipsed the Germans in jet numbers. Also helps that the P-80 required a single fairly simple to manufacture centrifugal-flow jet engine, while each Me 262 required two more complicated axial-flow engines. I would still suspect the Me 262 was probably the more advanced, superior aircraft, but as you say production numbers can overcome that. This was probably true of most US versus German designs, the German designs were probably usually superior, but good design couldn't make up for production capacity.
If all else fails, ram them...
@@dilet1114 Yep, production numbers definitely win out there. Every ramming incident takes down one of each. Who runs out first?
@@johnburns4017 You mean the Jumos? I don't know how they compared with the centrifugal flow engines, but I do get the sense they're more tempramental. All early jets of either type were, the video describing how many P-80s were lost to accidents shows how troublesome they were, and in turn how dangerous aircraft powered by them were.
@@johnburns4017 Also a matter of building what they could, given their lack of alloying metals, which denied them the option of building better/more advanced...
I won't name the other channel, but I recently saw a video on WWII war planes which was so full of errors and inconsistencies that it's main effect on me has been that I gained even more respect for Dr Felton. It shows that if you want to learn something ask an expert.
I have neighbor who has one mounted in his front yard(along with several other aircraft), I always love to stop and gander at a piece of history.
For those of you wondering if a P-80 (or F-80 as I call it) and a Me262 fought, the most likely winner would actually be the P-80 due to its higher maneuverability thanks to its straight wings. I know this because Combat Flight Simulators are a passion of mine and this exact scenario is one I run alot in IL2 1946. Yes the Me262 wins every now and then but only because it had the altitude advantage or it got a lucky shot off, its slower acceleration and somewhat sluggish nature especially at lower speeds means that if a P-80s pilot is vigilant they can dance all around the Me262. Also I should mention another factor hurting the Me262 in these scenarios is the fact that unlike most other sims IL2 1946 also models engine reliability and vulnerability to pilot error (at least for Jets), and half the time the reason the P-80s win is because the Me262's engines catch fire and explode due to poor quality.
Yay Il-2s best! I expect it's true that the P-80 would be better in a dogfight, but if you want to chew through a formation of B-17s it's the '262 every time for me