I read a comment in a book on early USN jets that went something like " and after crippling a generation of USN aircraft, Westinghouse went back to making washing machines " :-)))
The Westing house and General Electric companies were given the Engine Contracts because they weren't Pratt and Whitney or Allison and Wright who were Piston Engine Kings and swamped like Grumman the results were mixed GE emerged the Winner.
I am a flight test engineer at Patuxent River. In my 40 years of aviation I’ve been involved in the testing of the P-3, KC-130J, E-3B, V-22, MH-60S, AH-1Z and MQ-4C. What a blast! I still can’t believe I get paid to do a job I dreamt of as a kid and play with the coolest toys in the world. I’m actually bummed retirement is at hand but it’s time to turn over the keys to the next generation of testers.
@@MM22966 I forgot the P-8A, Poseidon. That would be the worst I’ve ever worked on by far! Why? Because it’s a civilian airliner forced into a military role. It wasn’t built for the rigors it can be expected to see over its lifetime. Every time it failed at something the program just changed the requirement to benefit Boeing. When I found critical issues with the aircraft both Boeing and the program refused to fix and said they’d accept the risk. The best? Wow. I’m going to lean towards the KC-130J. When I went to that program I already had over 3500 hours of flight time on other aircraft so I’d been doing it for a long time. But when I walked up onto the flight deck my jaw dropped. I swore I was on the Starship Enterprise. Lockheed had done a beautiful job on it. It was easy to work with, it was f’ing powerful and did everything we asked of it, unlike the P-8. The P-3 is a beauty as well mainly cause I started as a wide eyed 18 year old airman flying as a naval Aircrewman on it. Lockheed does aircraft well.
You know what they say about the firstborn child. As parents, they are the ones on whom you make all your mistakes. F6U Pirate to F7U Cutlass to F8U Crusader. A lineage that suggests lessons learned. Another great deep dive into shallow waters. Bravo!
After the F4U Vought went through an extended loosing streak. The F5U, F6U, and F7U were all major failures. Then Vought recovered brilliantly with the F8 and the A7.
I love your deep dive stories of obscure designs that deserve a mention, and are otherwise often overlooked in the history of aviation....thanks for posting 😊
Crusader might be a good one especially viewed from it's jump in performance over what the Navy had been flying . I think it was like 500 mph faster than the plane it replaced . J57 was the first 10K thrust engine / 5'ish years ahead of the J79 . The British liked to do high altitude bombing practice on the carriers which made the Navy mad because they couldn't reach them ... then one day the Brits were greeted by F8's doing *vertical* passes on them surprise !
The J79 was 50% to 100% more powerful than the J57. They aren't both in the same class just because they both make more than 10K lbs. More importantly the J79 weighs less than 4,000lbs while the J57 weighs over 5,000lbs. The J57 is a great engine and was a significant step, but it's not really the same class as the J79 which was a real breakthrough design. I would like to see the F-8 covered just because I like it, but I also feel that it tends to get underestimated because the F-4 overshadowed it in the end. Not forgotten, but people kind of see it as a side show, while in reality it was one of the newest and highest performing planes in the world for years, really a hot ship. Just because it's not Mach 2 doesn't mean it wasn't pretty incredible, and it was still decently agile. And no one makes a big enough deal or the fact that it managed to have a long range and even carry bombs and rockets, but they never used drop tanks on it, at all. It did everything on internal fuel alone. Which is a quite amazing achievement, especially for the time. They made one is the fastest and highest performing jets ever made at the time, with an unusually long range and good payload, also capable of safe carrier operations, decent radar and IR, missiles, guns, a very powerful new engine, and they did all this only using the internal fuel tanks, so it was always capable of maximum performance. I dont think anyone has pulled that off before or since. Although I think the A-7 also frequently didn't use drop tanks, even though they didn't have the variable incidence wing to worry about.
Sounds like this plane was the definition of trial-and-error. I have to salute Vought for tanking all the headaches in the middle of a company-wide move, even if the end result was a fairly disastrous product.
I am very much enjoying your exploration of these first generation jet aircraft and the issues presented to their design teams. I had an interest in these first generation jets from my teens. I was taken to air shows to see some of them fly (when airshows were airshows). As an air cadet a number of our lessons in the Principles of Flight covered some of the issues here. Visits to RAF stations would usually unearth an airframe or two tucked away in the corner of a hanger or an airfield. As a young Brit, building the inevitable Airfix first generation jets and less inevitably some of the American types from the likes of Revell. Your research and depth of coverage appeals to me. Thank you for your videos. Revd ( Sqn Ldr ) ( retired ).
Thank you for sharing this story in such an entertaining manner! I was stationed at Edwards Air Force Base in 1998-2001 and 2011-2012, so my family appreciates your comments about that wonderfully desolate place.
Goodness. Such a great episode. I have this aircraft in two or three of my books, I never clearly understood the nature of the problems. You really feel for the Vought team. It's not like they weren't trying. I have similar feelings about the North American team that designed the YF-107 and the XB-70, brilliant ideas that didn't make the cut, although in the case of the latter two planes, I think it's clear that they were not just innovative, but were genuine performers too. Anyway, just a really great episode: entertaining but substantive. Well done.
Vought were pioneers of trying to solve complex problems in unique ways. The XF5U "Flying Pancake", XF6U Pirate, and F7U Cutlass were very innovative , but were victims of being severely underpowered. Their predecessor, the F4U "bent-wing" bird Corsair was the fastest aircraft in the world, until the heavier P-47 entered service with its larger and more complex turbo-supercharger. As you state in the last section @27:46 , had the Pirate been given swept wing treatment, like the FJ-1 that became the Sabre/FJ-2 with all flying tail, it would have been a "barn, burner" vs the F9F-3 Panther and FH-1 Phantoms. It would have been a legitimate contender over the Skies of Korea's "MiG Alley". Perhaps John Glenn, the "MiG Mad Marine" and future astronaut, would have gotten his MiG-15 kills in a USMC swept wing F6U-4 Pirate II rather than USAF Sabre? Vought got it right with the F8U when the J57 turbojet, both Collier Trophy winning designs, and when mated together delivered World Leading Performance that raised the bar for Fighter Aircraft until 3rd Generation Fighter Aircraft like the F-4 Phantom II with advanced radar and weapon systems entered service. Even then the F-8 Crusader was a better pure dogfighter than the F-4 over the skies of Vietnam.
Two exceptions to the larger/heavier were the Grumman F8F Bearcat and the Douglas A4D (later A-4) Skyhawk. Both were smaller and lighter than their predecessors and contemporaries.
Yeah, I think most of us have seen those before. It's a trend, not a law of nature. And the F8F was only smaller and lighter because it had a very specific role in mind, to be a perfect fleet interceptor. The only way to get more performance from the available engines was to make the plane smaller and lighter, at the cost of range and armament and equipment. They wanted it to climb very fast and reach very high speeds, all else was subordinate to that. And if it had been a great approach they would have stuck with it. It turns out that range and equipment and payload actually is very important, especially for a Navy fighter. They didn't have kamikazes to deal with any more, so the F8F went away.
Thanks for making videos on the rarer forgotten aircraft. It's hard to go past the fact it took so long to take off. Surely everyone- including the Navy- should have had all their alarm bells going off right there! I really liked some of their ideas though.Easy servicing was awesome and removable wing tips is a good solution to a potentially expensive/heavy problem.The Metalite seemed to work well too
I find it a little ironic that they are willing to incorporate experimental concept (of that time) such as ejection seat or afterburner, but not swept wing, which was already documented... (Talking about swept wing though, I heard its linage successor, The swept wing F7U Cutlass, was also a dangerous plane to handle, it will be neat to see you cover about it in the future to know how bad it was exactly)
@@starliner2498 Hi Starliner. Here in Europe, German, Germanic, Hungarian and Norse Countries, the focus is in mathematical Analysis for applied mathematics, while in the Anglosphere the focus is Calcululs for applied mathematics. In both geographical domains, they study both of these foci, but it turns out, that when you make research in natural processes, e.g. fluid mechanics, you need to make an exact soluble model, which might not be computationally solvable, in order to understand what you can allow and what you can approximate. E.g. you model a spring with a first order polynomial while an exact model might be a fifth order polynomial. The European view, supports understanding but slow scientific development and more slow time to market. The Angloview, supports partial understanding but relativelly rapid scientific development and short time to market.
Yes the moniker attached to the Cutlass when it was in service was "Gutless". I believe this was because it was also woefully underpowered. But the Cutlass had a host of design choices that made it a very difficult aircraft to operate from carriers.
@@joelrodriguez9661I’ll always hope the Cutlass’ airframe was too far ahead of the contemporary powerplant technology. I’ve loved it since I was a kid, just awestruck by its shape. If only it had the engines needed for it’s performance, there might have been more will to resolve its other solvable woes. Alas, only in my imagination…
Both the Pirate and the Cutlass had the misfortune to be the recipient of an absolute dog of an engine (and they weren't the only ones). There were problems with both that a reliable, gutsy powerplant would have gone a long way toward fixing.
The horrid debacle of the failed J40 engine killed many promising designs, and nearly killed others. A few great designs transcended it, being able to take other better engines.
When you think about it, it's pretty crazy that essentially the first attempt to build a real jet fighter (we won't count the Airacomet) was actually so successful and had such a long service history and became of the the legends, both of the F-80 and the T-33, when they had such a hard time coming up with the follow up acts. I guess it's because the F-80 was just the ultimate extension of the tech that already existed, they didn't try to break new ground aside from the engine.
The presentations are always good. I don't agree on too much tech on the Pirate though. Bad design choices yes. The afterburner engine was a consequence of too little thrust to start with and a knee jerk to overcome with AB. 4 x 20mm was the Navy norm (Corsair) . Trying to get away with too small a wing swept or not looks to have been its main failing. Badly designed and wrong sized wing looks to be at its core and CV should have been able to build a wing that did both low and high speed (Corsair again). The ME-262 wing sweep was a CG aspect not Mach (the first papers on swept wing was in the 30s and in Italy as I recall).
yes, the 262 lucked out with swept wing because engineers needed to shift weight for CG. She got tricycle gear because the jet exhaust on tail taildragger 262 melted the airport and runway surface.
4:05 very interesting that the photo you used at 4 minutes in with the Pirate & Corsair also has a Northrop flying wing landing behind them if you look closely.
At least Vought made their big mistakes (and learned from them early on)...still, kind of amazing from the company that eventually produced the Crusader. Waiting for your Cutlass video--that should be brutal! 😎
28:33 excellent detail in this yes they tried to bite off more than they could chew but they were groundbreaking and I'm sure they were highly useful in the future incarnations
At least the afterburner worked at times to increase thrust which is more than you could say for Curtis Wright's design for the license built Saphire aka J65-. . . . But then at least the F11F didn't need it to get off the deck of a carrier.
F-6U is exactly how I imagine if the Turbojet version of the P-47 made into production phase. Ultimately Seversky and his team found out that the existing P-47 was more suitable with the piston engine, later they decided to completely altered the design and thus P-84(later redesignated F-84) was born. Also, there is a mix powered version of P-47 that has a axial flow jet engine with the modified piston engine but the USAF was not interested in the design. F-84 on the other hand, was intended to serve the USAAF as a air superiority fighter to rival the ME262(which never happened), but ended up gradually replace the WW2 era piston powered fighters while the USAF was created in the late 1940s. Later it served well as CAS aircraft and managed to shot down 8 MIG-15s in the Korean War.
I have not looked lately, but I knew were a Vought Sign still was on a Rockwell International Downey period Building. I grew up next door even when we moved early 70's, then the same street AGAIN, just other side. Think I will GO TAKE a FRESH LOOK? just down the street from my adult home a few blocks. Lots of HISTORY there! I sat inside SCORCED Re Entry Gemini and Apollo Capsules as a kid in the 60's and 70's smelled like Ozon and cooked Circuit Board before we knew what Cooked Circuit Boards smelled like?
Looking back, this was new technology and everyone was having teething problems, some found out sooner, the military broadcast seeds to see which ones took root. Look at development of piston engines from 1920 to 1945.
Having an interest in building card models I'm pleased to see that there have been at least two versions of this lesser known aircraft available. One in 1/33rd scale and a bundle of three versions in 1/100th. The three great things about card modeling are 1) At 1/33rd scale it at least a magnitude cheaper than plastic. 2) Because of greatly reduced development costs unusual subjects can be done even in large scales. 3) If you scan the parts sheets you have a back-up if you mess up. Just print more parts 😊
This is a very nicely-done video! Superb pictures make up for the lack of film clips, your narration is flawless, and the absence of distracting “quasi-music” makes for a particularly relaxing, enjoyable and informative presentation!
I'd like to see footage of a 15 minute engine swap! I've done a car in an hour, from pushing it in to driving it out, but I get to skip torquing every bolt, since cars don't fly. Their footage needs to end with the plane taking off, or I don't believe their claim.
@@dbs555 it almost was that easy by the 3rd engine swap… 2 electrical connectors, 2 fuel lines, (lift it) 2 radiator hoses, exhaust, 8 er 9 mount bolts, engine out the bottom & repeat backwards ending with fill fluids & bleed cooling system…and add unzip&reziptie, a lot Iirc, that was awhile ago. The zip ties made things faster, and I don't think they're used on planes.
Having them inject powerful combat stimulants would be pretty useful. Also posions, drugs, and so on. They're great for enhancing the capabilities of the user but against direct combat stand it could definitely struggle. I mean just imagine running on them like running on an airport mocing walkway. Using them to enhance punches by propelling your arm, increasing your leverage, or giving you the ability to leap great distances.
It is pretty crazy to think that the F4F wasn't actually the primary fighter at the start of the war, it was the _brand new_ fighter that was just starting to enter squadron service. Most squadrons were happy to get them eventually. And they were still considered modern and fairly competitive fighters for several years, from most of what i have read outside of a few famous quotations. I feel like the US had this tendency to more or less scapegoat the equipment whenever things weren't going well. They didn't want to seem like they were blaming the troops, it was easier to say "yeah,e are just getting best because this damn fighter is no good, but don't worry, we got a new one on the way". My controversial opinion is that the US could have won the war with the F4F, if need be. They would have had to train to work with its weaknesses, and you take advantage of the strengths, and probably had higher losses. But it was good enough and could have been improved more. Not that there was any reason at all to do that, but it could have been done.
I've never understood how the swept wing was some super brilliant concept that only some genius German could come up with. No aeronautical engineer at NACA, Farnborough, University, or in industry ever thought "what if we angle the wing back?" I mean, try to make a paper airplane that doesn't have a partly, or fully swept wing. Of all the wing shapes that were experimented with, ONLY straight wings? It's not like some super counter intuitive or complicated design.
Straight wings have a number of advantages especially those skilled in the art don’t want to give up ( easy to fly, safe take off). As far as I understand the maths, the advantage of sweep comes in with a square law ( I mean in the same way you lose wing span . This is theory ). So in the experiment it may be hidden by measurement errors. You need to be bold. B787 has quite a sweep.
Sweeping wings was done on the german stuff largely for COM reasons but also strength, literally everyone knew what it would do naca and nasa just had no way to make the kind of power where it did much until the 50s Honestly im not sure im okay with calling a mustangs wings straight they are trapezoidal Spitifires are eliptical as are p47 wings The modern 30ish sweep doesnt do much until mach 1.1 or so but it also cuts drag
In the words of the Philosopher Bill Murray - You can’t underestimate a Fighter named the Groundhog because no matter how you shoot at it it will keep flying again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again……………
I mean Pirate is logical after Corsair. Not sure if Buccaneer and Privateer were already taken at that point, but there are only so many words for the same idea. They had to start on pirate weapons by the Cutlass. And i guess they decided the name was a jinx by the time they switched to the Crusader. And then back again. Hadn't occured to me before how out of place the Crusader name was. Where did they get that from?
mind you there were too many planes that made into to service that really shouldn't have like the Cutlass which is also a Vought project....things weren't going well for them in the 50's
@@Wannes_ The A-7 was a very successful attack jet, but it's always amazed me how ugly it is despite its obvious design links to the beautiful and sleek F-8. I'm also surprised the Air Force bought A-7's. The USAF seems to only like pretty, pointy, fast jets, and eschews anything Navy-related, but there are exceptions such as the A-7 and A-10.
Believe it ir not, as bad as the J34 was, the J40 was even worse. Due to its manifest total failure the USN had to do the utterly unthinkable and adopt USAF engines for its 2nd and 3rd generation fighter aircraft.
None of these super-early carrier jets are really remembered. Pretty much the earliest anyone can name off the top of their head is the A-4 Skyhawk from 1954 or the F-4 Phantom II from 1958. It's largely because the earlier jets were unbelievably bad and technology was advancing very fast, so they often only saw very few years of service.
This is a good example of something that looked good on paper but that look didn’t translate well in the real world….. Why didn’t they make one solitary prototype to test out the design for one or two years is beyond me…. But don’t worry, there was another design in the works that’ll save the day…. The Cutlass! Now that was a real winner!
I'll admit to being new to the channel, but I didn't notice quite so much biting sarcasm. Not complaining, mind - that unique mix of bureaucracy and empirical results you get in the procurement of military hardware lends itself well to that mode.
I wonder how many years and lives were lost due to the Navy using crappy Westinghouse engines instead of going with more powerful and reliable Rolls Royce engines?
Hmmm, few niggling factual errors here, a few being the Corsair entered service BEFORE the Hellcat, not after, the P-80 was not lighter, but actually slightly heavier than contemporary piston engine types, like the P-51, & the blanket statement the the F-86 was the best fighter of it's generation is arguable at best. I kinda lost faith & gave up on your video a third of the way few. Noticed a lot of errors on your other videos too. You need to research more thoroughly & cross-check you assumptions. The devil's in the details, mate. Oh, & stop trying to be pithily 'witty' - It doesn't work.
A very misleading title!! 25 plus mins of everything but the actual subject LEADING UP TO LESS THAN 5 MINS ABOUT HE ACTUAL CLAIMED SUBJECT !! But the longer they can keep you on the hook viewing THE MORE REVENUE THEY MAKE OFF TH-cam!!
Why the Hell did they entertain this Thing ? , its intakes were tiny for any ingress of Air , and Balsa went out with the Mosquito ..and yes I have never heard of it , but a great Vid anyway.
I read a comment in a book on early USN jets that went something like " and after crippling a generation of USN aircraft, Westinghouse went back to making washing machines " :-)))
And radars ...
The Westing house and General Electric companies were given the Engine Contracts because they weren't Pratt and Whitney or Allison and Wright who were Piston Engine Kings and swamped like Grumman the results were mixed GE emerged the Winner.
And toasters….which allegedly produced more heat than their engines did.
Surely their most telling product is air brakes (as used on the railways).
@@Archie2c Both were in the (steam) turbine branch, so it's not that far off the mark
60s jets: must be supersonic, extremely maneuverable, and carry a large payload over a long range
50s jets: don't explode (optional)
😂
I didn't expect to laugh this hard in the comments
Glass half full eh? 😂😂
"Who would've thought that balsa wood isn't good jet outlet material" is a sentence I thought I'll never hear
I am a flight test engineer at Patuxent River. In my 40 years of aviation I’ve been involved in the testing of the P-3, KC-130J, E-3B, V-22, MH-60S, AH-1Z and MQ-4C. What a blast! I still can’t believe I get paid to do a job I dreamt of as a kid and play with the coolest toys in the world. I’m actually bummed retirement is at hand but it’s time to turn over the keys to the next generation of testers.
What was your favorite aircraft to work on? The worst? Why?
that sounds like an awesome career!
if you don't mine me asking, is this through the military, or contracted jobs through companies?
@@fulccrum2324 I am a federal civil servant for the DoD.
@@MM22966 I forgot the P-8A, Poseidon. That would be the worst I’ve ever worked on by far! Why? Because it’s a civilian airliner forced into a military role. It wasn’t built for the rigors it can be expected to see over its lifetime. Every time it failed at something the program just changed the requirement to benefit Boeing. When I found critical issues with the aircraft both Boeing and the program refused to fix and said they’d accept the risk. The best? Wow. I’m going to lean towards the KC-130J. When I went to that program I already had over 3500 hours of flight time on other aircraft so I’d been doing it for a long time. But when I walked up onto the flight deck my jaw dropped. I swore I was on the Starship Enterprise. Lockheed had done a beautiful job on it. It was easy to work with, it was f’ing powerful and did everything we asked of it, unlike the P-8. The P-3 is a beauty as well mainly cause I started as a wide eyed 18 year old airman flying as a naval Aircrewman on it. Lockheed does aircraft well.
@@kaptainkaos1202 "Lockheed does aircraft well" Except for the P-7 LRAACA. Ahem.
You know what they say about the firstborn child. As parents, they are the ones on whom you make all your mistakes. F6U Pirate to F7U Cutlass to F8U Crusader. A lineage that suggests lessons learned. Another great deep dive into shallow waters. Bravo!
After the F4U Vought went through an extended loosing streak. The F5U, F6U, and F7U were all major failures. Then Vought recovered brilliantly with the F8 and the A7.
F7u looks super cool though
Sounds a little like the Jet Provost Mk.3 - variable noise, constant thrust and only left the ground because the world is round
I love your deep dive stories of obscure designs that deserve a mention, and are otherwise often overlooked in the history of aviation....thanks for posting 😊
Crusader might be a good one especially viewed from it's jump in performance over what the Navy had been flying . I think it was like 500 mph faster than the plane it replaced . J57 was the first 10K thrust engine / 5'ish years ahead of the J79 . The British liked to do high altitude bombing practice on the carriers which made the Navy mad because they couldn't reach them ... then one day the Brits were greeted by F8's doing *vertical* passes on them surprise !
The J79 was 50% to 100% more powerful than the J57. They aren't both in the same class just because they both make more than 10K lbs. More importantly the J79 weighs less than 4,000lbs while the J57 weighs over 5,000lbs. The J57 is a great engine and was a significant step, but it's not really the same class as the J79 which was a real breakthrough design.
I would like to see the F-8 covered just because I like it, but I also feel that it tends to get underestimated because the F-4 overshadowed it in the end. Not forgotten, but people kind of see it as a side show, while in reality it was one of the newest and highest performing planes in the world for years, really a hot ship. Just because it's not Mach 2 doesn't mean it wasn't pretty incredible, and it was still decently agile. And no one makes a big enough deal or the fact that it managed to have a long range and even carry bombs and rockets, but they never used drop tanks on it, at all. It did everything on internal fuel alone. Which is a quite amazing achievement, especially for the time. They made one is the fastest and highest performing jets ever made at the time, with an unusually long range and good payload, also capable of safe carrier operations, decent radar and IR, missiles, guns, a very powerful new engine, and they did all this only using the internal fuel tanks, so it was always capable of maximum performance. I dont think anyone has pulled that off before or since. Although I think the A-7 also frequently didn't use drop tanks, even though they didn't have the variable incidence wing to worry about.
@@justforever96 I found an article comparing them .
Sounds like this plane was the definition of trial-and-error. I have to salute Vought for tanking all the headaches in the middle of a company-wide move, even if the end result was a fairly disastrous product.
More like trial-and-Terror :D
I am very much enjoying your exploration of these first generation jet aircraft and the issues presented to their design teams.
I had an interest in these first generation jets from my teens. I was taken to air shows to see some of them fly (when airshows were airshows). As an air cadet a number of our lessons in the Principles of Flight covered some of the issues here. Visits to RAF stations would usually unearth an airframe or two tucked away in the corner of a hanger or an airfield. As a young Brit, building the inevitable Airfix first generation jets and less inevitably some of the American types from the likes of Revell.
Your research and depth of coverage appeals to me. Thank you for your videos.
Revd ( Sqn Ldr ) ( retired ).
Thank you for sharing this story in such an entertaining manner! I was stationed at Edwards Air Force Base in 1998-2001 and 2011-2012, so my family appreciates your comments about that wonderfully desolate place.
I enjoy this channel so much! Thanks for diving in to all these forgotten fighters.
"Both bad, and not good." Wow! I think the whole plane was a "piece of kit." Great understated narration!
Goodness. Such a great episode. I have this aircraft in two or three of my books, I never clearly understood the nature of the problems. You really feel for the Vought team. It's not like they weren't trying. I have similar feelings about the North American team that designed the YF-107 and the XB-70, brilliant ideas that didn't make the cut, although in the case of the latter two planes, I think it's clear that they were not just innovative, but were genuine performers too.
Anyway, just a really great episode: entertaining but substantive. Well done.
You're my favorite channel in this format, the obscure and underappreciated birds are finally getting their due.
Vought were pioneers of trying to solve complex problems in unique ways.
The XF5U "Flying Pancake", XF6U Pirate, and F7U Cutlass were very innovative , but were victims of being severely underpowered. Their predecessor, the F4U "bent-wing" bird Corsair was the fastest aircraft in the world, until the heavier P-47 entered service with its larger and more complex turbo-supercharger.
As you state in the last section @27:46 , had the Pirate been given swept wing treatment, like the FJ-1 that became the Sabre/FJ-2 with all flying tail, it would have been a "barn, burner" vs the F9F-3 Panther and FH-1 Phantoms. It would have been a legitimate contender over the Skies of Korea's "MiG Alley". Perhaps John Glenn, the "MiG Mad Marine" and future astronaut, would have gotten his MiG-15 kills in a USMC swept wing F6U-4 Pirate II rather than USAF Sabre?
Vought got it right with the F8U when the J57 turbojet, both Collier Trophy winning designs, and when mated together delivered World Leading Performance that raised the bar for Fighter Aircraft until 3rd Generation Fighter Aircraft like the F-4 Phantom II with advanced radar and weapon systems entered service. Even then the F-8 Crusader was a better pure dogfighter than the F-4 over the skies of Vietnam.
Two exceptions to the larger/heavier were the Grumman F8F Bearcat and the Douglas A4D (later A-4) Skyhawk. Both were smaller and lighter than their predecessors and contemporaries.
Yeah, I think most of us have seen those before. It's a trend, not a law of nature. And the F8F was only smaller and lighter because it had a very specific role in mind, to be a perfect fleet interceptor. The only way to get more performance from the available engines was to make the plane smaller and lighter, at the cost of range and armament and equipment. They wanted it to climb very fast and reach very high speeds, all else was subordinate to that. And if it had been a great approach they would have stuck with it. It turns out that range and equipment and payload actually is very important, especially for a Navy fighter. They didn't have kamikazes to deal with any more, so the F8F went away.
Thanks for making videos on the rarer forgotten aircraft.
It's hard to go past the fact it took so long to take off. Surely everyone- including the Navy- should have had all their alarm bells going off right there!
I really liked some of their ideas though.Easy servicing was awesome and removable wing tips is a good solution to a potentially expensive/heavy problem.The Metalite seemed to work well too
I LOLed IRL at "not only was that bad, but it wasn't good" 🤣
11:01 😂 turns into a submarine on contract with water. That's was one hell of a left handed compliment.
I love the way you differentiate paper statistics with actual real-world performance. And the jokes about the later are killers!
I find it a little ironic that they are willing to incorporate experimental concept (of that time) such as ejection seat or afterburner, but not swept wing, which was already documented...
(Talking about swept wing though, I heard its linage successor, The swept wing F7U Cutlass, was also a dangerous plane to handle, it will be neat to see you cover about it in the future to know how bad it was exactly)
@@christopherneufelt8971
I see, thanks for giving me insights to this!
@@christopherneufelt8971wait what do you mean by lower maths level (in genuinely curious)
@@starliner2498 Hi Starliner. Here in Europe, German, Germanic, Hungarian and Norse Countries, the focus is in mathematical Analysis for applied mathematics, while in the Anglosphere the focus is Calcululs for applied mathematics. In both geographical domains, they study both of these foci, but it turns out, that when you make research in natural processes, e.g. fluid mechanics, you need to make an exact soluble model, which might not be computationally solvable, in order to understand what you can allow and what you can approximate. E.g. you model a spring with a first order polynomial while an exact model might be a fifth order polynomial. The European view, supports understanding but slow scientific development and more slow time to market. The Angloview, supports partial understanding but relativelly rapid scientific development and short time to market.
Yes the moniker attached to the Cutlass when it was in service was "Gutless". I believe this was because it was also woefully underpowered. But the Cutlass had a host of design choices that made it a very difficult aircraft to operate from carriers.
@@joelrodriguez9661I’ll always hope the Cutlass’ airframe was too far ahead of the contemporary powerplant technology. I’ve loved it since I was a kid, just awestruck by its shape. If only it had the engines needed for it’s performance, there might have been more will to resolve its other solvable woes. Alas, only in my imagination…
Both the Pirate and the Cutlass had the misfortune to be the recipient of an absolute dog of an engine (and they weren't the only ones). There were problems with both that a reliable, gutsy powerplant would have gone a long way toward fixing.
Yes! The Cutlass was such an eye catcher for me. I just wish the J85s were around for it!
The horrid debacle of the failed J40 engine killed many promising designs, and nearly killed others. A few great designs transcended it, being able to take other better engines.
When you think about it, it's pretty crazy that essentially the first attempt to build a real jet fighter (we won't count the Airacomet) was actually so successful and had such a long service history and became of the the legends, both of the F-80 and the T-33, when they had such a hard time coming up with the follow up acts. I guess it's because the F-80 was just the ultimate extension of the tech that already existed, they didn't try to break new ground aside from the engine.
The presentations are always good. I don't agree on too much tech on the Pirate though. Bad design choices yes. The afterburner engine was a consequence of too little thrust to start with and a knee jerk to overcome with AB. 4 x 20mm was the Navy norm (Corsair) . Trying to get away with too small a wing swept or not looks to have been its main failing. Badly designed and wrong sized wing looks to be at its core and CV should have been able to build a wing that did both low and high speed (Corsair again). The ME-262 wing sweep was a CG aspect not Mach (the first papers on swept wing was in the 30s and in Italy as I recall).
yes, the 262 lucked out with swept wing because engineers needed to shift weight for CG. She got tricycle gear because the jet exhaust on tail taildragger 262 melted the airport and runway surface.
Amazing that Vought even survived after the failure of the Pirate & the Cutlass
Vought had a *lot* of influence in Washington. They were arguably better at lobbying than aircraft design.
4:05 very interesting that the photo you used at 4 minutes in with the Pirate & Corsair also has a Northrop flying wing landing behind them if you look closely.
I saw that, I thought I was seeing things!
At least Vought made their big mistakes (and learned from them early on)...still, kind of amazing from the company that eventually produced the Crusader. Waiting for your Cutlass video--that should be brutal! 😎
Heyyyy, be nice to the Cutlass! Picture one with two J85s!
@@ronjon7942 I agree; those early engines promised more than they could deliver.
28:33 excellent detail in this yes they tried to bite off more than they could chew but they were groundbreaking and I'm sure they were highly useful in the future incarnations
At least the afterburner worked at times to increase thrust which is more than you could say for Curtis Wright's design for the license built Saphire aka J65-. . . . But then at least the F11F didn't need it to get off the deck of a carrier.
Loving the history lessons.
F-6U is exactly how I imagine if the Turbojet version of the P-47 made into production phase. Ultimately Seversky and his team found out that the existing P-47 was more suitable with the piston engine, later they decided to completely altered the design and thus P-84(later redesignated F-84) was born.
Also, there is a mix powered version of P-47 that has a axial flow jet engine with the modified piston engine but the USAF was not interested in the design. F-84 on the other hand, was intended to serve the USAAF as a air superiority fighter to rival the ME262(which never happened), but ended up gradually replace the WW2 era piston powered fighters while the USAF was created in the late 1940s. Later it served well as CAS aircraft and managed to shot down 8 MIG-15s in the Korean War.
Great video...👍
Superb presentation - thank you !
'Since this was both bad AND not good...' Well, you never want THAT combination in anything you're doing.
It was a wonderful, deep, divine story of obscure designs. lovable US airplanes ✈️ history lessons
I’m really liking your channel. I really enjoy the perspective you’re bringing to the community. Nice work.
Those tail extensions look terrible. I wonder if the wide twin vertical stabilisers on the Cutlass were designed with the same line of thinking.
A very nice documentary.
Great video. It is a small jewel.
I have not looked lately, but I knew were a Vought Sign still was on a Rockwell International Downey period Building. I grew up next door even when we moved early 70's, then the same street AGAIN, just other side. Think I will GO TAKE a FRESH LOOK? just down the street from my adult home a few blocks.
Lots of HISTORY there! I sat inside SCORCED Re Entry Gemini and Apollo Capsules as a kid in the 60's and 70's smelled like Ozon and cooked Circuit Board before we knew what Cooked Circuit Boards smelled like?
Looking back, this was new technology and everyone was having teething problems, some found out sooner, the military broadcast seeds to see which ones took root. Look at development of piston engines from 1920 to 1945.
Great Video. While the first made afterburner, the L133 had them on paper - and maybe the test engine
Having an interest in building card models I'm pleased to see that there have been at least two versions of this lesser known aircraft available. One in 1/33rd scale and a bundle of three versions in 1/100th. The three great things about card modeling are 1) At 1/33rd scale it at least a magnitude cheaper than plastic. 2) Because of greatly reduced development costs unusual subjects can be done even in large scales. 3) If you scan the parts sheets you have a back-up if you mess up. Just print more parts 😊
This is a very nicely-done video! Superb pictures make up for the lack of film clips, your narration is flawless, and the absence of distracting “quasi-music” makes for a particularly relaxing, enjoyable and informative presentation!
I think they miss out on the more Snazzy exotic name .... The Wombat 😉
I haven't laughed so hard in a long time, thanks!
The fuselage certainly has the profile of a submarine...
Never heard of this Vort designer, hopefully it's fascinating
Vought.
I'd like to see footage of a 15 minute engine swap!
I've done a car in an hour, from pushing it in to driving it out, but I get to skip torquing every bolt, since cars don't fly.
Their footage needs to end with the plane taking off, or I don't believe their claim.
If it only required removing six bolts and disconnecting the electrical plus fuel lines, you could do your car engine in 15 minutes, too.
@@dbs555 it almost was that easy by the 3rd engine swap…
2 electrical connectors, 2 fuel lines, (lift it) 2 radiator hoses, exhaust, 8 er 9 mount bolts, engine out the bottom & repeat backwards ending with fill fluids & bleed cooling system…and add unzip&reziptie, a lot
Iirc, that was awhile ago. The zip ties made things faster, and I don't think they're used on planes.
Having them inject powerful combat stimulants would be pretty useful. Also posions, drugs, and so on. They're great for enhancing the capabilities of the user but against direct combat stand it could definitely struggle. I mean just imagine running on them like running on an airport mocing walkway. Using them to enhance punches by propelling your arm, increasing your leverage, or giving you the ability to leap great distances.
It is pretty crazy to think that the F4F wasn't actually the primary fighter at the start of the war, it was the _brand new_ fighter that was just starting to enter squadron service. Most squadrons were happy to get them eventually. And they were still considered modern and fairly competitive fighters for several years, from most of what i have read outside of a few famous quotations. I feel like the US had this tendency to more or less scapegoat the equipment whenever things weren't going well. They didn't want to seem like they were blaming the troops, it was easier to say "yeah,e are just getting best because this damn fighter is no good, but don't worry, we got a new one on the way".
My controversial opinion is that the US could have won the war with the F4F, if need be. They would have had to train to work with its weaknesses, and you take advantage of the strengths, and probably had higher losses. But it was good enough and could have been improved more.
Not that there was any reason at all to do that, but it could have been done.
very good video
Some of the statements in the narration are simply savage! LOL
I mean...just look at it.
This looks like a close cousin of the FJ-1 Fury.
I've never understood how the swept wing was some super brilliant concept that only some genius German could come up with. No aeronautical engineer at NACA, Farnborough, University, or in industry ever thought "what if we angle the wing back?" I mean, try to make a paper airplane that doesn't have a partly, or fully swept wing. Of all the wing shapes that were experimented with, ONLY straight wings? It's not like some super counter intuitive or complicated design.
Straight wings have a number of advantages especially those skilled in the art don’t want to give up ( easy to fly, safe take off). As far as I understand the maths, the advantage of sweep comes in with a square law ( I mean in the same way you lose wing span . This is theory ). So in the experiment it may be hidden by measurement errors. You need to be bold. B787 has quite a sweep.
Sweeping wings was done on the german stuff largely for COM reasons but also strength, literally everyone knew what it would do naca and nasa just had no way to make the kind of power where it did much until the 50s
Honestly im not sure im okay with calling a mustangs wings straight they are trapezoidal
Spitifires are eliptical as are p47 wings
The modern 30ish sweep doesnt do much until mach 1.1 or so but it also cuts drag
If it had a tendency to roll onto its back it should have been the Tom Cat because ours does that a lot
I've heard of the Pirate. XF6U-1
Didn’t get past all the adverts
Great video. Love these obscure subjects.
This one derserves the F105 moniker THUD
F86 is beautiful too.
"...to enjoy the experience of living in a quanset hut in the desert." 😂
Instantly click now when I see your videos bud, good job and keep it up.
0:59 where is the P-51?
Or is it just a laminar flow wing?
11:30 Is that Yager on the left?
In the words of the Philosopher Bill Murray - You can’t underestimate a Fighter named the Groundhog because no matter how you shoot at it it will keep flying again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again……………
Should have sent to those ranges as drones.
I mean Pirate is logical after Corsair. Not sure if Buccaneer and Privateer were already taken at that point, but there are only so many words for the same idea. They had to start on pirate weapons by the Cutlass. And i guess they decided the name was a jinx by the time they switched to the Crusader. And then back again.
Hadn't occured to me before how out of place the Crusader name was. Where did they get that from?
So it is Friday!
Time stamp 15:15 HAHAHAHAHA LMAO 😂, Great comment on a classic car!!
The fact that it was so butt-ugly was a bad sign
Reminds me of a warthog
Well sometimes you just can't polish a turd.
Did anyone notice the woman in the red top walking across the screen at 2:37?
Now there's a dog ...
The Fury and Phantom at least made it into (limited) squadron service and out to the carrier
mind you there were too many planes that made into to service that really shouldn't have like the Cutlass which is also a Vought project....things weren't going well for them in the 50's
@@mikepette4422 They still built 320 Cutlasses, but yeah, they badly needed a successful plane ... the F8U Crusader !
(and its slower brother the A-7)
@@Wannes_ The A-7 was a very successful attack jet, but it's always amazed me how ugly it is despite its obvious design links to the beautiful and sleek F-8. I'm also surprised the Air Force bought A-7's. The USAF seems to only like pretty, pointy, fast jets, and eschews anything Navy-related, but there are exceptions such as the A-7 and A-10.
@@RCAvhstape They did buy a lot of Phantoms though. =o)
Have a look at the lengthened, up-engined YA-7F ... never went into service though
@@Wannes_ Part of that purchase was foisted upon the USAF by McNamara I was led to understand.
Believe it ir not, as bad as the J34 was, the J40 was even worse. Due to its manifest total failure the USN had to do the utterly unthinkable and adopt USAF engines for its 2nd and 3rd generation fighter aircraft.
The development of this aircraft seems very Kerbal.
"bad and also not good" is my new "not great, not terrible"... you sir, win my "likes" forever.
also... balsa wood.....*sigh*
It's the plane my little cousin draws 🤣
None of these super-early carrier jets are really remembered. Pretty much the earliest anyone can name off the top of their head is the A-4 Skyhawk from 1954 or the F-4 Phantom II from 1958. It's largely because the earlier jets were unbelievably bad and technology was advancing very fast, so they often only saw very few years of service.
I forget a4 is that old, delta with a tail and the intakes make me think its much newer, that and you always see it in veitnam videos
Surprised to see Vaught hasn’t Americanised into Vort….😂
@@DaveSCameron It's Vought W⚓️ 🤣🤣
This is a good example of something that looked good on paper but that look didn’t translate well in the real world…..
Why didn’t they make one solitary prototype to test out the design for one or two years is beyond me….
But don’t worry, there was another design in the works that’ll save the day….
The Cutlass!
Now that was a real winner!
Nah the real winner is the Me262.
Wait, the first afterburner was used on a piston engine?
Sounds like it had good ideas but was let down by the tech of the time.
I'll admit to being new to the channel, but I didn't notice quite so much biting sarcasm. Not complaining, mind - that unique mix of bureaucracy and empirical results you get in the procurement of military hardware lends itself well to that mode.
I wonder how many years and lives were lost due to the Navy using crappy Westinghouse engines instead of going with more powerful and reliable Rolls Royce engines?
Interesting question. In the case of the Cutlass, what RR engine would you have chosen? I’m a little weak on British motors of that gen.
"the best fighter of its generation"
*doubt*
Well that best fighter title goes to the Me262.
The AMERICAN navy sheesh
Even the only scale model of the Pirate is a loser.
Too ambitious and innovative, but conservative on the wing design... we stuck to what we know, not some newfangled swept wing...
🥰
There's always something really interesting about failures and mediocrity
Familys move round!!!!
Geez!!! Get on with it!!
Some kinda WOKE THROWN IN !!!!!
Maybe. Still, doesn’t make it any easier.
Putting everything else aside: good *lord* that's an ugly aircraft.
Hmmm, few niggling factual errors here, a few being the Corsair entered service BEFORE the Hellcat, not after, the P-80 was not lighter, but actually slightly heavier than contemporary piston engine types, like the P-51, & the blanket statement the the F-86 was the best fighter of it's generation is arguable at best. I kinda lost faith & gave up on your video a third of the way few. Noticed a lot of errors on your other videos too. You need to research more thoroughly & cross-check you assumptions. The devil's in the details, mate. Oh, & stop trying to be pithily 'witty' - It doesn't work.
A very misleading title!! 25 plus mins of everything but the actual subject LEADING UP TO LESS THAN 5 MINS ABOUT HE ACTUAL CLAIMED SUBJECT !! But the longer they can keep you on the hook viewing THE MORE REVENUE THEY MAKE OFF TH-cam!!
Another critic.
What were they thinking? With an airframe only a Mother could love! 🫢😂😁🤣
Why the Hell did they entertain this Thing ? , its intakes were tiny for any ingress of Air , and Balsa went out with the Mosquito ..and yes I have never heard of it , but a great Vid anyway.