@@RENEGADEJon19I mean, lowest bidder which also met the requirements. History has shown that this can work both ways for people in the field, either the requirements are too stringent and there's huge delays getting equipment into service, or the expectations or understanding of what's currently capable with the technology of the time is far too low, leading to high-priced junk. Sometimes you get an F-15, and other times you get a Zumwalt-class destroyer...
Yes, just what an aeroplane with already marginal performance needs, more weight and drag, sort of surprising they didn't think to put turrets on the floats!
@@johnstirling6597 Yes, the turret ‘thing’ for fighters was a bit strange. If they were hoping to emulate the success of the WW1 Bristol Fighter then the Defiant should have had some forward-firing armament. When it comes the Roc though, utilising ANY forward firing armament would probably have caused the Roc to stall and fall like a…..well……rock. Those floats weren’t even made for it ~ they came off a Blackburn Shark. In the grossest of indignities, Boulton-Paul were the subcontractors who actually had to build the Roc which delayed their own Defiant, Blackburn being too busy building the Skua and another Blackburn horror, the Botha. It was always a mystery to me why the RAF stuck with the .303 for their own aircraft turrets, apart from late-war Rose turrets on Lancs with 2 x 50 cals ~ although at the other extreme was a Wellington with a dorsal turret mounting a 40mm Vickers ‘S’ gun!
@@RCAvhstape They were perfect. Check out their “Rex” floatplane. It was so good they produced more but without the float. They also got to attack different targets anytime.
Rather than Wildcat-fish, as referred to in the video, I would bet the aircraft was referred to as the Wild-Catfish, as the catfish is a well-known bit of Americana.
The image of a Spitfire on floats has sent many a float driver's heart a flutter over the decades. However, having now witnessed footage of one, I feel the pilots heart may have fluttered for altogether different reasons...
Crazy is something a lot of British aircraft makers could do. Blackburn just seemed to do stupid and frankly, outside of the Buccaneer I don't know if Blackburn ever had a single decent plane
Blackburn, Fairey, and Bolton Paul were the holy trinity of weird British aircraft manufacturers. Then you look at the non-Spitfire creations of Supermarine…
@@calvinnickel9995 Would have LOVED to see some Disney Noseart for the Walrus! The dang thing looked like it would fly about as well as a real walrus with wings and an engine strapped to it, but the crews loved it. Crews love good airplanes.
I was waiting to mention the float-Hellcat (Hellcatfish?) proposal in the comments here, only for my face to light up with glee at the end of the Wildcatfish's segment! Good video as usual! I believe one of the primary reasons for the draggier twin pontoon configuration on either Grumman conversions would probably be the length of the propeller influencing the height of the main supporting struts, as they'd need to provide the prop clearance otherwise they'd be ripped into. The Wildcat's pudgy belly in particular also meant that it would be even taller as a result, and the aircraft would ride very high on the water compared to the Rufe, which may be suboptimal for generally getting in and out of while on the water/at a seaplane base and water handling/seaworthiness in general (and would also potentially mean more drag from the strut's length, whether that would be more than two pontoons is arguable though). This could've been relatively less of an issue on the Hellcat proposal, though I suspect that the belly may be reserved for the drop tank/ordinance on it (despite the Hellcat's belly pylon almost never being used for bombs in practice), so a twin-float configuration may have been preferred. Didn't exactly matter in the end though, thanks to both the Seabees and an overabundance of CVEs that could continue to provide support well after the main carrier fleets had moved on to other targets, there was a lack of need for either (alongside the similar XSB2C-2 prototype). On a similar note, the later Curtiss SC Seahawk (not a fighter, but a shipboard scout) used a single pontoon config alongside various aerodynamic refinements and other major changes compared to previous types, being pretty sleek for a floatplane as a result. While top speed wasn't much better than than the Wildcatfish (except on the SC-2), performance and agility was great enough that it could outclimb the F6F to 6,000 feet and reportedly even outturn the F8F, thanks to a combination of performance, low weight, low wing loading, full-length leading edge slats, good power to weight ratio, etc. While most fighters could just outrun it, that agility was valuable for flying defensively so that the Seahawk could carry out it's regular duties with some degree of safety, something that most contemporary (and preceding) VOS/VCS designs weren't well suited for. Not quite the same context as the F4F-3S and related Hellcat proposal, but notable as an example of what can possibly be done with a single float configuration. -This was totally not an excuse to talk about one of my favorite planes I swear-
I was curious on this. He mentioned the hydraulic system on the wildcat, but iirc, the wildcat had no hydraulics. The propeller was electric, the flaps pneumatic, and I believe the landing gear were raised with a hand crank and chain drive.
Fun fact, the only allied operational seaplane fighter in 1940 was the French Loire 210 (1937). Only 19 were built but at 300 kph it was not a match for the Bf 109 either.
I read this and thought "That can't be right!", but try as I might, I could find no counter-examples. A few dive-bombers, a few more torpedo planes, and a crap ton of reconnaissance and spotter aircraft, but no allied fighters. Well done! I should have known from your username.
The "unofficial" method was to pull up from a dive and nudge the handle sending it spinning by itself thereby allowing the pilot the luxury of NOT having to crank the gear DOWN when landing....
@@JohnSmith-pl2bkAlso, to retract the gear you nose over to unload the G on the airframe as you crank them up so they feel lighter. I've watched pilots do it at air shows.
Later generation Wildcats built by GE had automated gear but yes, the gear on first generation ones built by Grumman were handcranked. These days it's not uncommon for flying examples to be retrofitted with the powered gear, but there are still a fair number of "purists" out there as well.
@@hlynkacg9529No, the FM-2 does not have a powered main landing gear retraction system, instead, it still used the hand cranked mechanism, that Grumman built F4Fs were built with, and it's the same system that the FF-1, F2F, and F3F used as well.
My dad and brother were longtime employees of Grumman. I have 2 Grumman story books including One of A Kind. This plane was not in it. I never heard of it. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
It's a pity the Saunders Roe aircraft never got anywhere. I went to see the only one left in Southampton back in August. It's a really interesting aircraft that did work. There is some old film of it flying on TH-cam from Path News and other. Thank you.
It's funny but the Japanese managed to build a pretty successful float plane fighter whereas as the allies never did. Thanks for the info. I actually made a balsa version of the Ruf. It's a nice looking plane.
The Japanese had many floatplane projects. Far too many. Each too specialized to build in numbers that could have an impact. One just to bomb the Panama Canal from a submarine (though that mission was altered and then canceled). One just to launch from an enormous catapult that took up the entire stern of a special light cruiser to do scouting for submarines.
Yes, that was the sole XC-47C, but it wasn't intended for the production models to operate in the Mediterranean Theatre, only, because, the Army Air Force wanted them for the North Pacific Theatre.
Grumman's Wild Catfish gave it that old college try, but in the end, it was the Curtiss SC Seahawk, 577 built and in service to supplement then replace the Kingfisher in spotting.
Would love to see a video on the axis floatplane fighters. Some still very much experiments but others quite mature like the Rufe. A video on the sometimes troubled development of ship launched reconnaissance floatplanes would be cool as well.
Golly gosh those spitfires are beautiful. It's quite amusing how the conversions came from Bush plane float builder- too heavy and draggy Race plane builder- good but delicate (Both as youd except) A nation with zero experience - excellent
There never was a float equipped F6F proposal from Grumman, because the F4F-3S proved to be a dud, and, the Navy began to expand the size of their Fast Carrier force, which put to an end the idea of a seaplane fighter.
The japanese had the advantage of a much lighter aircraft as the basis of their float plane. That would seem to be the only explanation for the US and britain failing to produce an equivalent, both having entrants in the schneider trophy , so neither a novice in the field .
Nice to see the British tried and succeeded in making a fast Seaplane Spitfire. But, it essentially never got out of trials and wasn't practical enough. I guess the Japanese won this round.
Early in the war the Brits would catapult a Hurricane from a merchant ship to protect a convoy. The Hurricane would engage the enemy and then ditch near an escort vessel. When done in the Atlantic the pilot could be recovered, when done on the Murmansk Convoys, the pilot froze to death every single time. This would have been an ideal time to have any floatplane that worked. Heck, the Kingfisher had a 30 cal, it would have been very useful.
The little Kingfisher was a scout plane, as a fighter, the Japanese fighters would've shot them down with ease. However, the pilot of one landed a very lucky shot, and killed a single Zeke.
The engine that powered the F4F-3/4, and FM-1 is not the mighty R-2800 Double Wasp 18 Cylinder engine, instead, those three production variants were powered by the R-1830 Twin Wasp, 14 Cylinder engine, developing 1200 Horsepower. The Wildcat's design could never accommodate the much larger R-2800 engine. Also, the top speed of the XF4F-3S was only 241mph.
The Ido(?) Corporation of "Lawn Guyland" New York. Where did this Brit narrator pick up the Long Island "G"? Did someone convince him that this is the typical American English accent?
Are those "float-spits" or "float-fire" footage real?(I just coined those two at the time of this typing). And you forgot to mention the P-38 variant nicknamed "scorpion tail"
In less than a week the Seabees could make a fully functional airstrip on some gawd-forsaken South Pacific Island. In 2024 it takes a governmental agency two years to rebuild a 100 foot long interstate overpass bridge. To rebuild a 10 kilometer superhighway at the State Capital of Michigan it will take over two years and close to $1 Billion dollars. The rebuilding process is so slow that there is a 20 kilometer interstate called I-496 in Lansing that has been undergoing a reconstruction over 5 years and may not be done until 2027. Japan just should have water 80 years to declare war on the USA.
@@mikepette4422Actually, that was the more refined SC-2 powered by a turbocharged R-1820 engine, not the earlier SC-1, which did see some wartime service.
These float planes armed with modern missiles and avionics could still pack a punch when stationed around the pacific islands to ambush Chinese forces if they advanced on Taiwan. This is the last thing the Chinese would be looking for, but it could serve as a missile platform to take out ships or aircraft! They would definitely be a surprise as they popped up from behind a jungle canopy! LOL!
that first clip..... wow, what crappy gunnery/aiming LOL . dude has a fairly close gun convergence.... and is shooting at 2 to 3 (maybe 4) times that distance (like, if its set to 500 yards, dude is shooting at 1000 to 1750 yards in say) i think he gets some hits on the 5th burst.... definitely some hits on the 6th burst. . but ya.... id set my convergence farther out (even if every burst hit the target) im not a pilot.... but my "main video game catagory" has been flight sims..... and ive ALWAYS set my convergence pretty far away (despite EVERYONE telling me i was an idiot) . . if you have it set at 200 yards..... at 600 yards, the bullets may "spread" so much you miss.... even if your aim was perfect like, the rounds from the left guns go right.... and the right guns go left. . but if it was set at 1000 yards.... it would have blown off both wings. . . . like.... the max spread can only be as far as the guns are apart on your own wings. and as distance increases, up to 1000 yards / the set point.... the spread gets tighter and tighter and past 1000 yards.... you arnt going to hit crap anyway (and even if you do, might not have enough energy left in the bullet to do any damage) . i also like to set vertical convergance as far / high as i can because then you need to pull less lead..... . setting vertical too close = the enemy is under your nose.... you cant see him... and you cant see if you are getting hits but if your guns ALREADY are pointed up at, say, 10 degrees..... thats 10 degrees less lead you need to pull . . . so, it would be the same G load.... but you can actually see the enemy, and you can see if you are getting hits or need to adjust your aim. . . . . idk.... to me, this seems logical set your conv at the max effective range..... same with vertical conv then, no matter what, you can get CONCENTRATED hits (again, the max spread will be the distance between your own guns.... and it gets TIGHTER!!! as distance increases from 0) AND!! you have to pull less lead.... AKA you can see your own tracers / impacts.... and its MUCH easier to adjust aim (or even know if your aim was close in the first place / if you got any hits) . . but ya.... i have been made fun of to NO END.... because in War thunder and other sims (DCS) i set it to 750+ yards.... instead of 300 yards however.... i end up using short bursts and blowing both wings off...... or, at distance, putting all 6/8 guns right into the cockpit . meanwhile.... by friends are spraying rounds all over the sky.... and trying to aim with the left wing guns only, as the spread is so far.... if you get hits with the left guns, their is NO WAY you can also get hits with the right guns. (and, again, my guns are ALL!!!! hitting..... either right guns hit right wing, left guns hit left wing...... as enemy gets farther away, its the same, but are hitting at the wing roots..... and even farther still, and all guns/bullets are going into the EXACT SAME spot...... AKA like 200 rounds into the pilots head)
Somehow i get the feeling getting contracts had nothing to do with war material but to fulfill family member dreams of never having to work and any idea that allowed that was considered. Legit Military war material was designed contracted out and produced. The money is/was in all the superfluous concepts. Float planes really????
Uh no. This isn’t DCS or War Thunder. Remember.. the A-10 was only able to put something like 17% of its shells onto a _stationary_ tank in non-combat conditions. Guided munitions rule.
Nothing gives more confidence than the designers saying it ‘should be good enough’.
Go serve on a submarine 😊
Never forget, your gear was made by the lowest bidder. That, and your injuries are not service-related
Sounds like the Boeing philosophy over the last two decades.
@@RENEGADEJon19I mean, lowest bidder which also met the requirements. History has shown that this can work both ways for people in the field, either the requirements are too stringent and there's huge delays getting equipment into service, or the expectations or understanding of what's currently capable with the technology of the time is far too low, leading to high-priced junk.
Sometimes you get an F-15, and other times you get a Zumwalt-class destroyer...
Nothing gives more confidence than engineers working in feet.
The very thought of a Blackburn Roc with floats sends my mind into ‘theoretically, a bumblebee is incapable of flight’ territory.
Yes, just what an aeroplane with already marginal performance needs, more weight and drag, sort of surprising they didn't think to put turrets on the floats!
the very thought of the Roc alone sends me into spasms and I'm usually found curled up in a ball whimpering...."why ? why ?"
@@johnstirling6597 Yes, the turret ‘thing’ for fighters was a bit strange. If they were hoping to emulate the success of the WW1 Bristol Fighter then the Defiant should have had some forward-firing armament. When it comes the Roc though, utilising ANY forward firing armament would probably have caused the Roc to stall and fall like a…..well……rock. Those floats weren’t even made for it ~ they came off a Blackburn Shark. In the grossest of indignities, Boulton-Paul were the subcontractors who actually had to build the Roc which delayed their own Defiant, Blackburn being too busy building the Skua and another Blackburn horror, the Botha.
It was always a mystery to me why the RAF stuck with the .303 for their own aircraft turrets, apart from late-war Rose turrets on Lancs with 2 x 50 cals ~ although at the other extreme was a Wellington with a dorsal turret mounting a 40mm Vickers ‘S’ gun!
Well on the bright side, youve got a very fast fan boat...
@@bradenhagen7977 Leave out the words ‘very’ and ‘fast’ and I’ll agree with you.
Loved the subject matter in this video, the Japanese were the only country who seemed to perfect the floatplane fighter and use it in larger numbers
I don't know if "perfect" is the right word, but they got it to at least be useful.
@@RCAvhstape They were perfect. Check out their “Rex” floatplane. It was so good they produced more but without the float. They also got to attack different targets anytime.
@@mikloridden8276 those things could fly up to 355mph which for a float plane is pretty good.
I realize the zero had a lower hp engine, but still wonder how they could use the single float and not swamp the wingtip float when the engine revved.
@@RCAvhstapewhy are you coming over a war that was 80 years ago, be objective or admit your ignorant to specs and performance
Rather than Wildcat-fish, as referred to in the video, I would bet the aircraft was referred to as the Wild-Catfish, as the catfish is a well-known bit of Americana.
I'd like to think of it being called the Channel Cat. Lol
@@warhawk4494 I dunno, I think the channel cat would be the PBY Catalina. It's a geography thing.
Someone must have put whiskers on one.
The image of a Spitfire on floats has sent many a float driver's heart a flutter over the decades.
However, having now witnessed footage of one, I feel the pilots heart may have fluttered for altogether different reasons...
Spitfire started as a seaplane.
We need something crazy and probably stupid. Let's have Blackburn do it
Crazy is something a lot of British aircraft makers could do. Blackburn just seemed to do stupid and frankly, outside of the Buccaneer I don't know if Blackburn ever had a single decent plane
Blackburn, Fairey, and Bolton Paul were the holy trinity of weird British aircraft manufacturers.
Then you look at the non-Spitfire creations of Supermarine…
@@calvinnickel9995 Would have LOVED to see some Disney Noseart for the Walrus! The dang thing looked like it would fly about as well as a real walrus with wings and an engine strapped to it, but the crews loved it. Crews love good airplanes.
The ONLY decent plane that Blackburn produced was the all conquering Buccaneer
I was waiting to mention the float-Hellcat (Hellcatfish?) proposal in the comments here, only for my face to light up with glee at the end of the Wildcatfish's segment! Good video as usual!
I believe one of the primary reasons for the draggier twin pontoon configuration on either Grumman conversions would probably be the length of the propeller influencing the height of the main supporting struts, as they'd need to provide the prop clearance otherwise they'd be ripped into. The Wildcat's pudgy belly in particular also meant that it would be even taller as a result, and the aircraft would ride very high on the water compared to the Rufe, which may be suboptimal for generally getting in and out of while on the water/at a seaplane base and water handling/seaworthiness in general (and would also potentially mean more drag from the strut's length, whether that would be more than two pontoons is arguable though). This could've been relatively less of an issue on the Hellcat proposal, though I suspect that the belly may be reserved for the drop tank/ordinance on it (despite the Hellcat's belly pylon almost never being used for bombs in practice), so a twin-float configuration may have been preferred. Didn't exactly matter in the end though, thanks to both the Seabees and an overabundance of CVEs that could continue to provide support well after the main carrier fleets had moved on to other targets, there was a lack of need for either (alongside the similar XSB2C-2 prototype).
On a similar note, the later Curtiss SC Seahawk (not a fighter, but a shipboard scout) used a single pontoon config alongside various aerodynamic refinements and other major changes compared to previous types, being pretty sleek for a floatplane as a result. While top speed wasn't much better than than the Wildcatfish (except on the SC-2), performance and agility was great enough that it could outclimb the F6F to 6,000 feet and reportedly even outturn the F8F, thanks to a combination of performance, low weight, low wing loading, full-length leading edge slats, good power to weight ratio, etc. While most fighters could just outrun it, that agility was valuable for flying defensively so that the Seahawk could carry out it's regular duties with some degree of safety, something that most contemporary (and preceding) VOS/VCS designs weren't well suited for. Not quite the same context as the F4F-3S and related Hellcat proposal, but notable as an example of what can possibly be done with a single float configuration. -This was totally not an excuse to talk about one of my favorite planes I swear-
I was curious on this. He mentioned the hydraulic system on the wildcat, but iirc, the wildcat had no hydraulics. The propeller was electric, the flaps pneumatic, and I believe the landing gear were raised with a hand crank and chain drive.
Fun fact, the only allied operational seaplane fighter in 1940 was the French Loire 210 (1937). Only 19 were built but at 300 kph it was not a match for the Bf 109 either.
That translates to 186 Miles Per Hour, and that fighter was a whole lot slower than the BF-109, for sure.
I read this and thought "That can't be right!", but try as I might, I could find no counter-examples. A few dive-bombers, a few more torpedo planes, and a crap ton of reconnaissance and spotter aircraft, but no allied fighters. Well done! I should have known from your username.
I believe that the wildcat landing gear that was hand cranked rather than hydraulically operated.
The "unofficial" method was to pull up from a dive and nudge the handle sending it spinning by itself thereby allowing the pilot the luxury of NOT having to crank the gear DOWN when landing....
@@JohnSmith-pl2bkAlso, to retract the gear you nose over to unload the G on the airframe as you crank them up so they feel lighter. I've watched pilots do it at air shows.
Later generation Wildcats built by GE had automated gear but yes, the gear on first generation ones built by Grumman were handcranked. These days it's not uncommon for flying examples to be retrofitted with the powered gear, but there are still a fair number of "purists" out there as well.
Yes, it was operated by a hand crank, which is connected to a chain, and sprocket system that pulled, and lowered the main gear.
@@hlynkacg9529No, the FM-2 does not have a powered main landing gear retraction system, instead, it still used the hand cranked mechanism, that Grumman built F4Fs were built with, and it's the same system that the FF-1, F2F, and F3F used as well.
Interesting conversation kit for an airfix wildcat in 1/72.
6:06 Can we pause for a minute to appreciate how stylish these guys are? Seriously, they look sharp af.
My dad and brother were longtime employees of Grumman. I have 2 Grumman story books including One of A Kind. This plane was not in it. I never heard of it. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
It's a pity the Saunders Roe aircraft never got anywhere. I went to see the only one left in Southampton back in August. It's a really interesting aircraft that did work. There is some old film of it flying on TH-cam from Path News and other.
Thank you.
Wildcatfish would be the chungus of seaplane fighters, I had no idea that they attempted such a thing
Really enjoyed this one. You have a good voice for narration and your subject matter is obviously well researched.
Can't believe somebody tried a single retractable float concept and I haven't heard about it till now.
Been kicking that idea around for so long.
I love learning about obscure aviation history. Thank you.
It's funny but the Japanese managed to build a pretty successful float plane fighter whereas as the allies never did. Thanks for the info. I actually made a balsa version of the Ruf. It's a nice looking plane.
The Japanese had many floatplane projects. Far too many. Each too specialized to build in numbers that could have an impact. One just to bomb the Panama Canal from a submarine (though that mission was altered and then canceled). One just to launch from an enormous catapult that took up the entire stern of a special light cruiser to do scouting for submarines.
@@warheadsnationnot to mention the 3? 4? Versions launching off those cruisers. Commonly more than 1 type at a time.
There was also a single c-47 converted to floats, with the intention that it would operate in the Mediterranean.
There’s one still flying today on amphibious floats. There were LOTS of C-47/DC-3 on floats.
Yes, that was the sole XC-47C, but it wasn't intended for the production models to operate in the Mediterranean Theatre, only, because, the Army Air Force wanted them for the North Pacific Theatre.
Yeah, I saw the floaty C-47 in a book when I was like...13. Now the floaty wildcat IS something new to me-TY.
Ive been binge watching your vids for weeks now. I'm loving them so much and im going to be sad once the buffet is over
Small rudders on floats are water rudders for navigation on the water and are usually retracted to an “up” position when in flight.
I thought I knew a thing or two about airplanes and then I subscribed to this channel and realized I KNEW NOTHING!!!
Grumman's Wild Catfish gave it that old college try, but in the end, it was the Curtiss SC Seahawk, 577 built and in service to supplement then replace the Kingfisher in spotting.
The Both Buttons Pressed meme has entered the chat. "No more gear cranking twice a flight" vs "Fly slower".
Interesting subject really nice well done
Great video...👍
Would love to see a video on the axis floatplane fighters. Some still very much experiments but others quite mature like the Rufe. A video on the sometimes troubled development of ship launched reconnaissance floatplanes would be cool as well.
Golly gosh those spitfires are beautiful.
It's quite amusing how the conversions came from
Bush plane float builder- too heavy and draggy
Race plane builder- good but delicate
(Both as youd except)
A nation with zero experience - excellent
09:07 Small correction, the Dodecanese are in the south EAST Aegean, not south west.
Cracking upload, cheers 📚☘️🙏
Hellcatfish... Think I hooked one of those one time. Snapped my cane pole like a twig it did!😮
would love to see some videos on british air to air missiles, such as the sraam and firestreak
There never was a float equipped F6F proposal from Grumman, because the F4F-3S proved to be a dud, and, the Navy began to expand the size of their Fast Carrier force, which put to an end the idea of a seaplane fighter.
I like the name F4F-3 ChannelCat lol
Great video man. GG
The japanese had the advantage of a much lighter aircraft as the basis of their float plane. That would seem to be the only explanation for the US and britain failing to produce an equivalent, both having entrants in the schneider trophy , so neither a novice in the field .
thanks for all your research good stuff good insight
Wildcatfish is an excellent name
Very interesting design concepts but ultimately not desperately needed.
Imagine how WWII would have worked if CVs never cought on.
Obviously things didn't really work out, but at least it seems a no-brainer to have Supermarine have a go at it.
Nice to see the British tried and succeeded in making a fast Seaplane Spitfire. But, it essentially never got out of trials and wasn't practical enough. I guess the Japanese won this round.
Curtiss SC Seahawk next?
When I saw "Wildcatfish" I somehow thought of a Brewster Buffalo 😏
The Wildcat and Buffalo were the only decent fighters the Navy had at the beginning of the war.
Early in the war the Brits would catapult a Hurricane from a merchant ship to protect a convoy. The Hurricane would engage the enemy and then ditch near an escort vessel. When done in the Atlantic the pilot could be recovered, when done on the Murmansk Convoys, the pilot froze to death every single time. This would have been an ideal time to have any floatplane that worked. Heck, the Kingfisher had a 30 cal, it would have been very useful.
The little Kingfisher was a scout plane, as a fighter, the Japanese fighters would've shot them down with ease. However, the pilot of one landed a very lucky shot, and killed a single Zeke.
How did it never occur to anyone to call it a Spitfish?
Ever heard of the SEAfire...while not a float plane it WAS a navalised version of the SPITfire
The engine that powered the F4F-3/4, and FM-1 is not the mighty R-2800 Double Wasp 18 Cylinder engine, instead, those three production variants were powered by the R-1830 Twin Wasp, 14 Cylinder engine, developing 1200 Horsepower. The Wildcat's design could never accommodate the much larger R-2800 engine. Also, the top speed of the XF4F-3S was only 241mph.
Is there any more info on the spin recovery parachute. The only other piston plane ive ever heard of having one of these is the Cirrus SR-20/22
The Ido(?) Corporation of "Lawn Guyland" New York. Where did this Brit narrator pick up the Long Island "G"? Did someone convince him that this is the typical American English accent?
should have been called the Fisher Cat.
those are water rudders on the floats . they are not used for aerodynamics.
"the principle reason for this was that it was rubbish"
many such cases
Are those "float-spits" or "float-fire" footage real?(I just coined those two at the time of this typing). And you forgot to mention the P-38 variant nicknamed "scorpion tail"
In less than a week the Seabees could make a fully functional airstrip on some gawd-forsaken South Pacific Island. In 2024 it takes a governmental agency two years to rebuild a 100 foot long interstate overpass bridge. To rebuild a 10 kilometer superhighway at the State Capital of Michigan it will take over two years and close to $1 Billion dollars. The rebuilding process is so slow that there is a 20 kilometer interstate called I-496 in Lansing that has been undergoing a reconstruction over 5 years and may not be done until 2027. Japan just should have water 80 years to declare war on the USA.
I'm sorry, but those are not auxiliary rudders, instead, they were auxiliary fins.
And the U.S. Navy could not entirely let go of the seaplane fighter concept.....nor did the British.
the SC1 Curtiss Seahawk springs to mind as what was needed but it was far too late for this service
@@mikepette4422Actually, that was the more refined SC-2 powered by a turbocharged R-1820 engine, not the earlier SC-1, which did see some wartime service.
In many ways, the predecessor to the Harrier.
The Sopwith Camel is the Harrier's grandmother.
Just like the Wright Flyer was the predecessor to the F-35
@@SAIUN No, Sopwith is the company that later became Hawker, which built the Harrier.
@@RCAvhstapeit's more 6° of Kevin Bacon, than ancestor.
The Curtis Sc Seahawk would have made a better fighter than the Wildcat Personally
"Edo" huh? Kinda ironic.
Yes, Edo, former name for Tokyo and the period named after it. However EDO Aircraft was named after it's founder Edgar Dodge Osborne.
@jimroberts3009
Oh interesting. I always wondered why Edo floats were called that.
i wonder if all the drag from the floats could have been resolved with semi inflatable ones.
I love this shit ❤
Silly idea, in any era.
Or they could just have made an s6b with guns
These float planes armed with modern missiles and avionics could still pack a punch when stationed around the pacific islands to ambush Chinese forces if they advanced on Taiwan. This is the last thing the Chinese would be looking for, but it could serve as a missile platform to take out ships or aircraft! They would definitely be a surprise as they popped up from behind a jungle canopy! LOL!
that first clip..... wow, what crappy gunnery/aiming LOL
.
dude has a fairly close gun convergence.... and is shooting at 2 to 3 (maybe 4) times that distance (like, if its set to 500 yards, dude is shooting at 1000 to 1750 yards in say)
i think he gets some hits on the 5th burst.... definitely some hits on the 6th burst.
.
but ya.... id set my convergence farther out (even if every burst hit the target)
im not a pilot.... but my "main video game catagory" has been flight sims..... and ive ALWAYS set my convergence pretty far away (despite EVERYONE telling me i was an idiot)
.
.
if you have it set at 200 yards..... at 600 yards, the bullets may "spread" so much you miss.... even if your aim was perfect
like, the rounds from the left guns go right.... and the right guns go left.
.
but if it was set at 1000 yards.... it would have blown off both wings.
.
.
.
like.... the max spread can only be as far as the guns are apart on your own wings.
and as distance increases, up to 1000 yards / the set point.... the spread gets tighter and tighter
and past 1000 yards.... you arnt going to hit crap anyway (and even if you do, might not have enough energy left in the bullet to do any damage)
.
i also like to set vertical convergance as far / high as i can
because then you need to pull less lead.....
.
setting vertical too close = the enemy is under your nose.... you cant see him... and you cant see if you are getting hits
but if your guns ALREADY are pointed up at, say, 10 degrees..... thats 10 degrees less lead you need to pull .
.
.
so, it would be the same G load.... but you can actually see the enemy, and you can see if you are getting hits or need to adjust your aim.
.
.
.
.
idk.... to me, this seems logical
set your conv at the max effective range..... same with vertical conv
then, no matter what, you can get CONCENTRATED hits (again, the max spread will be the distance between your own guns.... and it gets TIGHTER!!! as distance increases from 0)
AND!! you have to pull less lead.... AKA you can see your own tracers / impacts.... and its MUCH easier to adjust aim (or even know if your aim was close in the first place / if you got any hits)
.
.
but ya.... i have been made fun of to NO END.... because in War thunder and other sims (DCS) i set it to 750+ yards.... instead of 300 yards
however.... i end up using short bursts and blowing both wings off...... or, at distance, putting all 6/8 guns right into the cockpit
.
meanwhile.... by friends are spraying rounds all over the sky.... and trying to aim with the left wing guns only, as the spread is so far.... if you get hits with the left guns, their is NO WAY you can also get hits with the right guns.
(and, again, my guns are ALL!!!! hitting..... either right guns hit right wing, left guns hit left wing...... as enemy gets farther away, its the same, but are hitting at the wing roots..... and even farther still, and all guns/bullets are going into the EXACT SAME spot...... AKA like 200 rounds into the pilots head)
Somehow i get the feeling getting contracts had nothing to do with war material but to fulfill family member dreams of never having to work and any idea that allowed that was considered.
Legit Military war material was designed contracted out and produced. The money is/was in all the superfluous concepts. Float planes really????
When Soviets tried to make a supersonic nuclear bomber out of this concept, none of this looks actually radical anymore...😅
What are you talking about?
@@WALTERBROADDUS Bartini A57 strategic bomber...
Not a Pound For Air To Ground.
No, he gets his £ from the TH-cam ad breaks. 5 ads played during this 12 minute video. This is why I do not subscribe.
The gunnery in those opening clips is atrocious. Clearly the gunner thought that lead was a projectile material not a targetting necessity! 🫣
Uh no. This isn’t DCS or War Thunder.
Remember.. the A-10 was only able to put something like 17% of its shells onto a _stationary_ tank in non-combat conditions.
Guided munitions rule.
What you're seeing are tracer rounds, not the regular rounds.