The summer of 1967 a WWI colonel offered me $5.00 to sweep a small warehouse and his small brick home beside it. While I swept the warehouse he sat and chatted with me. He talked of trench warfare, the misery of trench foot, the black-market, and early aviation. He was an interesting old man and I tried to soak up every word. Flight was in still in its infancy, while mainly used early on as reconnaissance, pilots would carry a 45 pistol, a grenade or 2, and a couple of bricks. Bricks I asked? He laughed and said yes. He said many wings were no more than cloth or very light material and if he found advantage he could throw a brick through the wing and down the pilot. Grenades were meant for machinegun nest, and the 45 was for dog fights. As the war dragged on aviation improved, and mounted gun were added. I've rattled on long enough and won't bore you any longer, but he relayed many stories, I'd have paid to listen to. He was a good old man.
If what I’m reading here is true, you should start a YT channel so those stories can be heard! I think we need those types of stories more now than ever before.
@@The1trueJester Not his stories. The US wasn't in the war until near the end of the conflict. This stuff is well known, and another third hand account is not exactly necessary.
It was the most adorable fighter plane ever made, there is one flying example which I have seen at an air show at Duxford, UK and the bright colour scheme coupled with the popping sound of the engine makes it something special amongst the warbirds.
A fella had one of these at the Chino Air Show a couple years ago. I love this little aircraft, and it was a treat to see it flying. I got to touch it too🤗
I was thinking the designers subconsciously were trying to design something aesthetically pleasing, vs. aerodynamically fit for purpose. It had a distinct 'art-deco' nuance about it, as did most things designed during the early 30s.
It's climb performance was not slouchy either. My uncle flew P-40s and to keep them humble their wing commander used to take a P-26 up and whip them in air combat. The funny part of that is my uncle did the exact same thing later when the first P-51s showed up. The seasoned pilot in the obsolete ship always cleaned house on the newby flying the latest-and-greatest.
Every now, and then there's a machine that is so clearly from one specific era. The peashooter was such a machine. Wild looking and stylish. So clearly of the early art decco period
My father 1 Lt. Alfonso Rivera of the Philippine Army Air Corps flew the Peashooter. The Zeros flew circles around him. He went on to fight as a guerilla and had his best revenge as a forward air control flying an L4.
It was dubbed "The Pea Shooter" because of its long sight tube. I'm surprised this video missed that one. Also, I'd love to know where the P-26 fought Japanese planes. My guess would be the Philippines, but I've never heard of it before.
Of 39 P-36As delivered to Hawaii by carrier Enterprise in 2/41 -- five were able to scramble during the Pearl Harbor attack 12/07/41. Two Mitsubishi A6M2s were splashed, while one Curtiss P-36 was lost. [Additionally a few P-40Bs from outlying fields scrambled.] I don't know if any P-36s were active at Clark. The USAAF already had P-40s there, and the Phillipine AAC had P-26s. Capt Jesus A Villamor led the PAAC's 6th Pursuit Sqdn which downed 3 Zeros and one Nell. On retreating, the remaining P-26s were burned to prevent the Japs from getting them. The Japanese attack on the PI is dated 12/08/41 -- this was not a day later. Being across the International Date Line, it was virtually the same day. Just a few time zones later. Contrary to what Dark Skies implies [9:40] Boeing P-26s were not active in Hawaii when the IJN attacked.
I've always loved this aircraft. I built a model of one as a kid painted in the livery of the 1st pursuit group at Selfridge Field Michigan which is just a stones throw from me. They do have one at the Air Force Museum at Wright Patterson AFB in OH.
About 15 years ago the San Diego Air and Space Museum gathered a bunch of old geezers who had been engineers or workers in old aircraft factories of yore and had them build, From Scratch, a brand new P-26. They hand formed and stamped every single aluminum part and riveted it all together. The original plane had custom designed tires that were more aerodynamic since they stuck out the bottom of the cowling. And there was only ONE of these tires left in the world, and it was so ancient that no one wanted to fill it with air for fear it would burst. ( the Smithsonian had an original P-26 but it sported motorcycle tires that were not correct ) These geezers came to me to make a set of molds and a method for casting FAKE tires made of solid urethane… like inline skate tires- except they had to match the originals in look. Luckily we had that one tire to make a mold from. The tires did not have to fly, but they DID have to be robust enough that the plane could be wheeled around on them. Me and their engineers designed a means to cut a stearman hub in half to be able to mount a solid urethane tire- and I designed a wooden core for the cast urethanes to distribute the load and prevent the urethane from splitting under load. We cast 4 usable tires, two are on the plane in San Diego. The other two they sent to the Smithsonian, but I don’t know if they mounted them on their P-26
It's a Boeing P-26, I remember making scale models if them at about 12-16 years old, radial air-cooled engine, not much longer were retractable landing gear, no outside wires, and closed canopies were coming soon in this era.
@@christopherrobinson7541 1920-1940 was a transitional period between monoplanes and biplanes. When did dial up baud internet get replaced by broadband???
@@jayg1438 There are many biplanes still flying. The best example is perhaps the AN-2, which first flew in 1947. There were other successful monoplanes from the same era, such as the Piper Cub and Supercub, of which about 20,000 were built. These aircraft were fit for purpose and have been reimagined using modern materials and have spawned generations of light-weight aircraft, such as the Eurofox, powered by Rotax engines. Progress is both evolutionary and revolutionary.
There were successful-for-their-day monoplanes from the very early days of flight, well pre-WWI. There was at least one fighter monoplane in service during that war. IIRC it was a Fokker but I can't recall its name. Also IIRC, the primary reason that biplanes were the preferred, essentially standard design during the period of their heyday was the significant increase in lift that the extra wing provided. This was far more significant back when the planes' top speeds were not much greater than the speeds at which many of us have been driving our cars ever since we starting building Interstate highways.
Episode details. One of your early top wing planes on this show is a Flying Quaker, a free flight model. The P26 was externally a copycat of a pylon racer, but more advanced in materials. It was not just a stepping stone, but a shrewd and nimble plane all in itself. It desperately lacked a locking tailwheel.
Agile yes, speed not really. It was obsolete when they starting drawing it. Willy was already working on the 109. It's bomber brother the B10 could out run it. Which is why everyone thought it was state of the art.
As I’ve heard it that large hump behind the pilot was a crash/ roll bar kind of detail. One can tell from just looking at the overall weight configuration that this had a propensity to snap over onto its nose. If you watch the videos on the history of the Flying Tigers, they depict the P-26 with nationalist markings so that’s where they got the experience of dueling with Zeroes.
1:16 "Biplanes like the Sopwith Camel and Fokker Dr. I..." Correctly shows a photo of the Dr.I, a _triplane_ . Dark Skies gets great topics with dubious presentations.
Hey just use stills of the subject instead of showing out of text videos of a modern scene. Videos of models of jet airliners diss's all your monologues. Not a hater just nit picking for QC.
1:12 Wrong. Not at the "cost of maneuverability". Just speed. Multiplanes have always been noted for being slower but more agile than their single-wing counterparts.
twin engines made the pilots feel much more calm, because the fan on the front of a single engine aircraft help keep the cockpit cool, as evidence by how much hotter the pilots felt when the cooling fan in front stopped turning, and with two fans, they felt like the AC would work better
@@JamesThompson-zk1ht the airflow over two surfaces close together creates interference with each of them. On paper, it works, but the physical dynamic of two wings cutting into the same air is such that they will interfere with each other. the larger gaining the advantage in air flow, but creating a pressure wave that causes reduced lift for the upper or smaller one. a single wide wing does not have that issue.
... While I have always wondered how it is that so many people don't seem to notice that what they've written is essentially incomprehensible, due to their sentences being incomplete. And that gets me wondering how that can happen without it being noticed that the thoughts themselves which inspired the sentences are also incomplete and therefore incomprehensible. And that gets me to wondering no more at the fact that nearly an entire third of the American population consistently votes against its own interests, for party platforms which also make no sense, as they are full of lies and simply don't add up.
Some fact checking necessary here I'm afraid. EG "The Boeing model 15. One of its early *all metal aircraft.* Employing a steel tube fuselage & wooden wings", All metal? Not even remotely correct, it just used steel tubing for the fuselage, which it "borrowed" directly from Fokker (they used the DVII as "inspiration"), and which Fokker had been using on their fighters for years. The rest of the construction was fabric covered wood, and since there were only ever 157 made, it hardly seems to warrant a mention. That said, even fewer P-26 were made.. Just 151. Hardly a world changer.
It looks very much, at first glance, like the GeeBee Special, a stubby little racing plane from 1930 that could go 300 MPH. Some of the inspiration for the P26 design must have come from it. It used the same type of WASP radial engine. The GeeBee Special was very unstable in some situations and caused the deaths of several pilots. Jimmy Doolittle was the only one back then who mastered the art of flying it and landing in one piece. I wonder if any of the P26s are still in existence and are flyable?
And that was the last time they had a contest at the local Grammar School District's locations, to see if the kids could design a better plane. Well almost the last 😉
The p26 peashooter also lead to the f2a Buffalo And the f4f wildcat design And later the f6f hellcat The p26 peashooter was the prototype to the f2a & f4f Boing made the p26 But Grumman revised it under the f4f wildcat hellcat programs 🕊️ Of ✌️
*Literally none of that is correct.* The bit regarding Boeing making the p-26 might have been if you actually wrote that. The Brewster Buffalo & the Grumman Wildcat designs had absolutely nothing at all to do with the Boeing P26. Brewster & Grumman neither revised the P-26 design nor used it to build their prototypes. Grumman already had the F3F, (also nothing to do with the P-26). That is what the F4-f was building on. The F-4f was a design intended to compete with the Brewster F2a, a competition that it initially lost.
1:16 An aircraft channel with 626K subscribers that calls a triplane a biplane... Yeah, I think I'll saunter back to my friend Greg's Airplanes & Automobiles...
Your timeline is way off man. The i16 and bf109 fought way before the pshooter did in the Philippines. You make it sound like they all fight at the same time
The brass demanded that that drag generating support wires be added that were not necessary given the cantilever wing design and the single-bank radial engine was like a parachute, both of which gave the "fighter" plane a top speed of 230mph which was no better than the B-10 bomber at that time. 😮
The Gee Bee spawned the Peashooter. The Peashooter in turn was sent home from WWII and got busy, spawning several examples of the Bee Gee. Those were most successful when they were working together, as a unit, and it was in this formation that for a few years in the 1970s they found themselves employed all over the world. However, even at their most popular, many of the people who experienced them became very outspoken critics. Ultimately their many major design flaws became too apparent to be ignored any longer. Service contracts were simply not renewed, as they were replaced by far better performing tools of their trade, and they were retired to quieter, more peaceful locales.
@@WALTERBROADDUS Yeah, they do. Stubby rounded wings, fixed landing gear, big nose. Their first flights were even in the same year, 1932. The biggest difference was that the Gee Bee had an enclosed cockpit that sat way back near the tail and was a racer, not a fighter.
Somewhat misleading post. WW1 combat aircraft were NOT less agile than metal fixed-wing monoplanes. That is utter crap. And all the combatants continued to produce and use biplanes right up to WW2. However, in fighter combat, the speed, power and firepower that could be packed into metal framed aircraft could not be matched by their biplane counterparts. Not only increased powerplant horsepower but increased firepower made the wooden biplane obsolete. But literally any fighter aircraft from WW1 could turn inside modern aircraft. They just wouldn't be able to compete with the weapons and speed. Enjoyed the rest of the post though.
Um... ? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you're saying that was the saving grace of the Peashooter - that although we did need something faster, the Peashooter, as a biplane, was unmatched for maneuverability. Right? Is that what you're saying? Or did I miss something?
Can we stop using 'insane' and 'shocked'? And BTW a lot of aircraft looked like this in the era. You make good videos, but your video names are trashy click bait.
*narrator Pretentious is a word. Portentous is also a word. Portentious is not a word. Great example of the fact that no, the reader is not always automatically able to figure out what you mean when you are too lazy and inconsiderate to proofread your writing and correct your mistakes.
![An Icon Of The US Army Air Corps | Boeing P-26 'Peashooter' [Aircraft Overview #20]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/srGcDeKSOlY/mqdefault.jpg)
![An Icon Of The US Army Air Corps | Boeing P-26 'Peashooter' [Aircraft Overview #20]](/img/tr.png)
The summer of 1967 a WWI colonel offered me $5.00 to sweep a small warehouse and his small brick home beside it. While I swept the warehouse he sat and chatted with me. He talked of trench warfare, the misery of trench foot, the black-market, and early aviation. He was an interesting old man and I tried to soak up every word. Flight was in still in its infancy, while mainly used early on as reconnaissance, pilots would carry a 45 pistol, a grenade or 2, and a couple of bricks. Bricks I asked? He laughed and said yes. He said many wings were no more than cloth or very light material and if he found advantage he could throw a brick through the wing and down the pilot. Grenades were meant for machinegun nest, and the 45 was for dog fights. As the war dragged on aviation improved, and mounted gun were added. I've rattled on long enough and won't bore you any longer, but he relayed many stories, I'd have paid to listen to. He was a good old man.
Never heard of the brick missle before!
@@Dr.Pepperdave Except for the old vet I never have either.
I'd love to hear more retelling if the colonels stories
If what I’m reading here is true, you should start a YT channel so those stories can be heard!
I think we need those types of stories more now than ever before.
@@The1trueJester Not his stories. The US wasn't in the war until near the end of the conflict. This stuff is well known, and another third hand account is not exactly necessary.
It was the most adorable fighter plane ever made, there is one flying example which I have seen at an air show at Duxford, UK and the bright colour scheme coupled with the popping sound of the engine makes it something special amongst the warbirds.
A fella had one of these at the Chino Air Show a couple years ago. I love this little aircraft, and it was a treat to see it flying. I got to touch it too🤗
The one in Chino is the only air worthy original aircraft surviving, IIRC.
The aircraft survived because it was too cute to shoot down
I was thinking the designers subconsciously were trying to design something aesthetically pleasing, vs. aerodynamically fit for purpose. It had a distinct 'art-deco' nuance about it, as did most things designed during the early 30s.
Yep! Everybody would love to have one of these!
😂👍🏻
No, pity towards the designer, because it was ugly as sin.
@charles2241 yours seems to be the minority opinion. I think it's the cutest instrument of death ever.
Even though it was obsolete by the start of WW2 the P-26 was one of the few planes that could out-turn a Zero.
It's climb performance was not slouchy either. My uncle flew P-40s and to keep them humble their wing commander used to take a P-26 up and whip them in air combat.
The funny part of that is my uncle did the exact same thing later when the first P-51s showed up. The seasoned pilot in the obsolete ship always cleaned house on the newby flying the latest-and-greatest.
@@patrickshaw8595 Didn't Manfred von Richthofen (the Red Baron) say something along the line ''it's not the crate but the man in it that counts''
*Any* contemporary biplane fighter could out-turn a Zero, or a Spitfire, or Me-109 etc. A seagull can out-turn a Zero.
@memkiii P-26s were monoplanes, not biplanes.
@@keithallver2450 his TRIplane was even more manuverable than the camels biplane layout.
Every now, and then there's a machine that is so clearly from one specific era. The peashooter was such a machine. Wild looking and stylish. So clearly of the early art decco period
My father 1 Lt. Alfonso Rivera of the Philippine Army Air Corps flew the Peashooter. The Zeros flew circles around him. He went on to fight as a guerilla and had his best revenge as a forward air control flying an L4.
Brave man to go up there in anything, more so with an under-gunned plane like that. I know you wear his name proudly!
It was dubbed "The Pea Shooter" because of its long sight tube. I'm surprised this video missed that one. Also, I'd love to know where the P-26 fought Japanese planes. My guess would be the Philippines, but I've never heard of it before.
Try to research Jesus Villamor and Jose Kare. They were the Filipinos who shot down Japanese Zeroes
It was, and if you look on TH-cam, you will find a very nice video.
Great video on very little known plane
@3:57 @6:58 and @7:10 he mentioned it.
Of 39 P-36As delivered to Hawaii by carrier Enterprise in 2/41 -- five were able to scramble during the Pearl Harbor attack 12/07/41. Two Mitsubishi A6M2s were splashed, while one Curtiss P-36 was lost. [Additionally a few P-40Bs from outlying fields scrambled.] I don't know if any P-36s were active at Clark. The USAAF already had P-40s there, and the Phillipine AAC had P-26s. Capt Jesus A Villamor led the PAAC's 6th Pursuit Sqdn which downed 3 Zeros and one Nell. On retreating, the remaining P-26s were burned to prevent the Japs from getting them.
The Japanese attack on the PI is dated 12/08/41 -- this was not a day later. Being across the International Date Line, it was virtually the same day. Just a few time zones later.
Contrary to what Dark Skies implies [9:40] Boeing P-26s were not active in Hawaii when the IJN attacked.
I can't imagine what it was like operating this against Zeros....
Love the paint schemes.
I've always loved this aircraft. I built a model of one as a kid painted in the livery of the 1st pursuit group at Selfridge Field Michigan which is just a stones throw from me. They do have one at the Air Force Museum at Wright Patterson AFB in OH.
About 15 years ago the San Diego Air and Space Museum gathered a bunch of old geezers who had been engineers or workers in old aircraft factories of yore and had them build, From Scratch, a brand new P-26. They hand formed and stamped every single aluminum part and riveted it all together. The original plane had custom designed tires that were more aerodynamic since they stuck out the bottom of the cowling. And there was only ONE of these tires left in the world, and it was so ancient that no one wanted to fill it with air for fear it would burst. ( the Smithsonian had an original P-26 but it sported motorcycle tires that were not correct )
These geezers came to me to make a set of molds and a method for casting FAKE tires made of solid urethane… like inline skate tires- except they had to match the originals in look. Luckily we had that one tire to make a mold from. The tires did not have to fly, but they DID have to be robust enough that the plane could be wheeled around on them. Me and their engineers designed a means to cut a stearman hub in half to be able to mount a solid urethane tire- and I designed a wooden core for the cast urethanes to distribute the load and prevent the urethane from splitting under load.
We cast 4 usable tires, two are on the plane in San Diego. The other two they sent to the Smithsonian, but I don’t know if they mounted them on their P-26
"Insanely Weird-Looking"?
Nah... ICONIC!
Excellent video. Love all the history put into to this. I really love pre-war livery of these planes.
It's a Boeing P-26, I remember making scale models if them at about 12-16 years old, radial air-cooled engine, not much longer were retractable landing gear, no outside wires, and closed canopies were coming soon in this era.
The interwar years were full of strange looking things everywhere . Explosions in technology , and developement , not seen sense modern times .
Plus, treaty limitations forced ingenuity. Like the German Pocket Battleship
@@TheSoonToBePurgedJackMeHoffIV Were they biplanes or monoplanes?
@@christopherrobinson7541 1920-1940 was a transitional period between monoplanes and biplanes. When did dial up baud internet get replaced by broadband???
@@jayg1438 There are many biplanes still flying. The best example is perhaps the AN-2, which first flew in 1947. There were other successful monoplanes from the same era, such as the Piper Cub and Supercub, of which about 20,000 were built. These aircraft were fit for purpose and have been reimagined using modern materials and have spawned generations of light-weight aircraft, such as the Eurofox, powered by Rotax engines.
Progress is both evolutionary and revolutionary.
There were successful-for-their-day monoplanes from the very early days of flight, well pre-WWI. There was at least one fighter monoplane in service during that war. IIRC it was a Fokker but I can't recall its name.
Also IIRC, the primary reason that biplanes were the preferred, essentially standard design during the period of their heyday was the significant increase in lift that the extra wing provided. This was far more significant back when the planes' top speeds were not much greater than the speeds at which many of us have been driving our cars ever since we starting building Interstate highways.
Excellent once again Dark mostly relevant film and info , keep it up
In junior high school, I had a math teacher, who had been in the Army Air Corp. He flew every thing, from the p16 to the p51.
Episode details. One of your early top wing planes on this show is a Flying Quaker, a free flight model. The P26 was externally a copycat of a pylon racer, but more advanced in materials. It was not just a stepping stone, but a shrewd and nimble plane all in itself. It desperately lacked a locking tailwheel.
Very interesting video, as always. Thanks a lot.
I *love* that little fighter!! I suppose it's a bit odd, but I really like the Brewster Buffalo, too, LOL! Thanks for the video!
This is such a great video because it well shows the challenges of progressing from cloth and wooden biplanes to metal monoplanes.
It does? Did I miss all that? Maybe I should watch it again...
Agile yes, speed not really. It was obsolete when they starting drawing it. Willy was already working on the 109. It's bomber brother the B10 could out run it. Which is why everyone thought it was state of the art.
Wow what an ending. I watched every second of this and the ending is awesome
How so, it's a 13 minute video you commented 7 minutes after it started, how do you do this?
@@JSFGuy2x speed
@@rfw7 sure, I was born at night just not last night.
@@JSFGuy wdym that’s a feature
@@rfw7 Right, you're not the only one that is claimed this. You can't understand anything at that speed. Makes Ben Shapiro look slow.
Let's go! No dumb comments yet. Great vid so far!
So far yes, the comments well looks like we got those Ethot garden tools That never fail.
A great plane to build a model of- it has an interesting shape, and some of the coolest paint jobs ever
A classic in design.
When i was a kid i had a string controlled model of this plane.
I would never call a P-26 weird looking. Jaunty, sporty, classic, but never weird.
I think it's a really beautiful plane
Oh hell yeah brother, this is what I’ve been missing!
I like the jet airliner models in the background
"The landscape of aerial combat"? What a concept.
"Biplanes like the DR-1"
As I’ve heard it that large hump behind the pilot was a crash/ roll bar kind of detail. One can tell from just looking at the overall weight configuration that this had a propensity to snap over onto its nose.
If you watch the videos on the history of the Flying Tigers, they depict the P-26 with nationalist markings so that’s where they got the experience of dueling with Zeroes.
1:16 "Biplanes like the Sopwith Camel and Fokker Dr. I..." Correctly shows a photo of the Dr.I, a _triplane_ . Dark Skies gets great topics with dubious presentations.
Very educational, thank you. It’s a cute airplane with gorgeous paint schemes, I need to build a model or two of it. ☺️
Got a notice this time.
Hey just use stills of the subject instead of showing out of text videos of a modern scene. Videos of models of jet airliners diss's all your monologues. Not a hater just nit picking for QC.
Cry someplace else
😊❤😊❤😊❤
Why, it adds to the story and as an aviation fan I still get it. Always nice to see other aircraft flying around.
1:12 Wrong. Not at the "cost of maneuverability". Just speed.
Multiplanes have always been noted for being slower but more agile than their single-wing counterparts.
This appears to be one of the more fact-based efforts of this channel which normally does not get much trust from me.
How bizarre is it, that barn storming was actually a thing.
twin engines made the pilots feel much more calm, because the fan on the front of a single engine aircraft help keep the cockpit cool, as evidence by how much hotter the pilots felt when the cooling fan in front stopped turning, and with two fans, they felt like the AC would work better
I do hope that was intended to be a joke.
@@JamesThompson-zk1ht Umm, yes. but there are always a a few who have no humor in their life, so they have hissy fits.
Well done boys!
The best part of this post is the color photo at the beginning.
That's silly and greatly exaggerated. But it IS a really nice shot.
The only highlight missing on the design was a chrome trim. Epic "golden age" design.
The fact that two wings that close together did not give twice the lift or maneuverability were also detriments
What on earth are you talking about?
@@JamesThompson-zk1ht the airflow over two surfaces close together creates interference with each of them. On paper, it works, but the physical dynamic of two wings cutting into the same air is such that they will interfere with each other. the larger gaining the advantage in air flow, but creating a pressure wave that causes reduced lift for the upper or smaller one. a single wide wing does not have that issue.
I've always wondered what the difference in being able to see incoming enemies vs an enclosed cockpit.
... While I have always wondered how it is that so many people don't seem to notice that what they've written is essentially incomprehensible, due to their sentences being incomplete.
And that gets me wondering how that can happen without it being noticed that the thoughts themselves which inspired the sentences are also incomplete and therefore incomprehensible.
And that gets me to wondering no more at the fact that nearly an entire third of the American population consistently votes against its own interests, for party platforms which also make no sense, as they are full of lies and simply don't add up.
Some fact checking necessary here I'm afraid. EG "The Boeing model 15. One of its early *all metal aircraft.* Employing a steel tube fuselage & wooden wings", All metal? Not even remotely correct, it just used steel tubing for the fuselage, which it "borrowed" directly from Fokker (they used the DVII as "inspiration"), and which Fokker had been using on their fighters for years. The rest of the construction was fabric covered wood, and since there were only ever 157 made, it hardly seems to warrant a mention. That said, even fewer P-26 were made.. Just 151. Hardly a world changer.
Thankyou
Serious question here, are there any "peashooters" still flying? imagine one at any of the national fly ins?
I'll see you guys in Warthunder 👌🤘
Wow. Weird to hear that Boing could only get three fuel injectors for that production run of 2s/3s.
its one few good US planes in war thunder for low tier gameplay, now if it had 50 cal thing be OP
Respect.
I like your videos and subscribe to your channel, but it would be nice if your clips had more to do with the subject matter. Thanks
Boeing has alot to answer for
Biplanes are slower than monoplanes, but turn tighter because of their smaller wingspan.
👍
It looks like something out of a old Bugs bunny cartoon. Or a flying beer can.
Notice at the 1:22 mark of the video, when turning the propeller, the entire engine moves.
It’s known as a rotary
Model 15, one of its all-metal aircraft with steel tube fuselage and wooden wings. So not actually all-metal then
It wasn't weird for its time.
It looks very much, at first glance, like the GeeBee Special, a stubby little racing plane from 1930 that could go 300 MPH. Some of the inspiration for the P26 design must have come from it. It used the same type of WASP radial engine. The GeeBee Special was very unstable in some situations and caused the deaths of several pilots. Jimmy Doolittle was the only one back then who mastered the art of flying it and landing in one piece. I wonder if any of the P26s are still in existence and are flyable?
That's a stretch. The visual resemblance is not really there.
It's not a rotary engine. It's a radial engine.
@@WALTERBROADDUS Right you are, correction made. I still thinks it looks a lot like the GeeBee Special.
I mean, looking at it, the overall shape is a slightly saner GB racing plane fuselage.🤔
😊❤😊❤😊❤😊
❤😊❤😊❤
And that was the last time they had a contest at the local Grammar School District's locations, to see if the kids could design a better plane. Well almost the last 😉
wow
The p26 peashooter also lead to the f2a Buffalo
And the f4f wildcat design
And later the f6f hellcat
The p26 peashooter was the prototype to the f2a & f4f
Boing made the p26
But Grumman revised it under the f4f wildcat hellcat programs
🕊️ Of ✌️
*Literally none of that is correct.* The bit regarding Boeing making the p-26 might have been if you actually wrote that. The Brewster Buffalo & the Grumman Wildcat designs had absolutely nothing at all to do with the Boeing P26. Brewster & Grumman neither revised the P-26 design nor used it to build their prototypes. Grumman already had the F3F, (also nothing to do with the P-26). That is what the F4-f was building on. The F-4f was a design intended to compete with the Brewster F2a, a competition that it initially lost.
@@memkiiithumbs up to you. I don't know where that guy was making stuff up from?
How far the mighty have fallen.
1:16 An aircraft channel with 626K subscribers that calls a triplane a biplane...
Yeah, I think I'll saunter back to my friend Greg's Airplanes & Automobiles...
Your timeline is way off man. The i16 and bf109 fought way before the pshooter did in the Philippines. You make it sound like they all fight at the same time
Obsolete when introduced, under gunned, slow, and very limited combat encounters. Only one kill in the Phillipines. Who wrote your text?
Well the Chinese used them against the Japanese.
The brass demanded that that drag generating support wires be added that were not necessary given the cantilever wing design and the single-bank radial engine was like a parachute, both of which gave the "fighter" plane a top speed of 230mph which was no better than the B-10 bomber at that time. 😮
Which came first: The Peashooter or the Gee Bee? They both look almost identical. Were they related?
Gee Bee, with a much bigger engine.
The Gee Bee spawned the Peashooter. The Peashooter in turn was sent home from WWII and got busy, spawning several examples of the Bee Gee. Those were most successful when they were working together, as a unit, and it was in this formation that for a few years in the 1970s they found themselves employed all over the world.
However, even at their most popular, many of the people who experienced them became very outspoken critics. Ultimately their many major design flaws became too apparent to be ignored any longer. Service contracts were simply not renewed, as they were replaced by far better performing tools of their trade, and they were retired to quieter, more peaceful locales.
@@JamesThompson-zk1ht Gee Bee, the airplane. Not Bee Gee, the brothers Gibb.
They don't look anything alike.
@@WALTERBROADDUS Yeah, they do. Stubby rounded wings, fixed landing gear, big nose. Their first flights were even in the same year, 1932. The biggest difference was that the Gee Bee had an enclosed cockpit that sat way back near the tail and was a racer, not a fighter.
Weird looking? No, it looks exactly like a 1930s period racing airplane should....
This isn't accurate. No P shooters had a dog fight with any Japanese planes. Only a couple of p40's and p36's made it up in the air.
Calling it Peashooter was not a compliment either.
polikarov?
Somewhat misleading post. WW1 combat aircraft were NOT less agile than metal fixed-wing monoplanes. That is utter crap. And all the combatants continued to produce and use biplanes right up to WW2. However, in fighter combat, the speed, power and firepower that could be packed into metal framed aircraft could not be matched by their biplane counterparts. Not only increased powerplant horsepower but increased firepower made the wooden biplane obsolete. But literally any fighter aircraft from WW1 could turn inside modern aircraft. They just wouldn't be able to compete with the weapons and speed. Enjoyed the rest of the post though.
Is your text (narration) generated? No shocks here!
The Soviets and Germans were way ahead in that regard
Maybe don't show a Fokker DR.1, a triplane, as an example of a biplane.
95 RS, kicking mules
needed faster aircraft, true. But NOTHING matches the bi plane for manuverability.
Um... ? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you're saying that was the saving grace of the Peashooter - that although we did need something faster, the Peashooter, as a biplane, was unmatched for maneuverability. Right? Is that what you're saying? Or did I miss something?
Looks like il 16 polykarpov
Didn't China have a few of these before WWII?
What?!...
Complimentary algorithm enhancement comment!😊
...nah...the FOKKER D7 DID...
Does anyone else look what you’re saying against what is being shown. You need help.
It's not weird looking, not even weird for the period.
I think the P-26 got its name from the form of its gunsight which was a tube just forward of the windscreen.
Nope. It was a common bit of technology for other aircraft.
Radials were not the answer.
In War Thunder, you start with the Pea Shooter!
Can we stop using 'insane' and 'shocked'? And BTW a lot of aircraft looked like this in the era.
You make good videos, but your video names are trashy click bait.
when you didn't have nazi technology, best you did was make ugly aircrafts to scare them away
Meanwhile in Germany...
Who writes the captions for these videos? A child?
why is the narator so portentious. Why not a simple conversational approach?
*narrator
Pretentious is a word.
Portentous is also a word.
Portentious is not a word.
Great example of the fact that no, the reader is not always automatically able to figure out what you mean when you are too lazy and inconsiderate to proofread your writing and correct your mistakes.
Nothing weirder than the flying sewer pipe Boeing submitted as the Lockheed Martin F35 competitor