And you assume that they are the same exact people who approved the Mk14, all still working there a decade or two later? Or just that the BuOrd has this amazing tradition of only accepting the most incompetent applicants so they can keep up an institutional incompetence over generations, even as the personnel change? Do they get any credit for all the very successful weapon systems the Navy adopted, or do you take the position that the 5"/45 and the proximity fuse, the Bofors, the F6F, the Mk48, Standard missile, etc, were all adopted in _spite_ it them, not because of them, and they only get the blame for the things that didn't work out?
Another BuOrd stuff-up was the construction of the Iowa class Battleships. They ended up being a huge success anyway, but the whole program was almost doomed from the start due in part to a BuOrd miscommunication. Congress and the Navy signed-off on what would become the Iowa class Battleships partly as a means of exploiting an existing asset; the Mk.2 and Mk.3 16-inch guns leftover from the 1920s (which were build for the cancelled Lexington class Battlecruisers and South Dakota class Battleships; no relation to the South Dakota class Battleships commissioned in the 1940s). Developing new major-caliber guns from scratch was notoriously difficult, and the longer gun tube of the Mk.2/3 made them more powerful, accurate, and longer-ranged than the shorter 16-inch guns already used on US Battleships, even when using the same projectiles and powder charges. However, the Navy had gotten accustomed to the new Mk.6 16-inch guns used on the North Carolina and (1940) South Dakota class, which were slimmer, lighter, and with less felt recoil than the older and cruder Mk.2/3. That meand a 3-gun turret on these new Battleships didn't need as wide a turret ring as their predecessors, and a 3-gun turret with the Mk.6 only needed a 16-foot diameter turret ring, compared to an 18-foot diameter ring for a 30-gun turret with the Mk.2/3. Starting to see what went wrong here? BuOrd communicated to BuShips that the Iowa class were to have 16" guns, but failed to mention that the Mk.2/3 required an 18-foot turret ring; BuShips, assuming the Mk.6 or a similar new gun was to be used, designed the Iowa class with a 16-foot turret ring... ...and the miscommunication wasn't discovered until the Iowa was already under construction! That forced the Navy to contract Waverleit Arsenal to hastily develop a Mk.6 gun with a longer gun tube, eventually resulting in the Mk.7 gun used on the Iowa class. Lots of time and money was unnecessarily wasted in the development of the Iowa class while the ongoing Second World War was visibly creeping-up on the US, simply because BuOrd and BuShips didn't think to co-ordinate their efforts. *The BuOrd and BuShips offices were only 4 miles apart.*
OH WOW, My Dad was in the Marines assigned as jet mechanic to VMF-333 squadron, and he probably worked on the FJ-3 shown at 11:46. That image gets thrown around a lot when the FJ-3 comes up. I still have his squadron patches. 😀
@@31terikennedy convergence is used for weapons spaced further apart. there's generally no convergence with weapons spaced this closely together as there's no need.
You would have like my radar at Ft Bragg TAC had inherited a Marine TPS-1 It didn't have much range but we found it good at tracking 155mm shells and we could tell where they hit ,dust, mud or swamp water by the return.
THAT'S IT! As well as the wonderfully researched presentation and images and videos I often haven't seen over my now many years - that calm voice bringing us not only great information but the driest of wits is indeed most therapeutic. I'm a plane guy, but Not a Pound brings the missile/radar info in a way that keeps me interested for sure.
3G turn at 500 knots with a 50% fuel level. Works "most" of the time if the pilot happens to be in that engagement profile. I wonder who signed off on this intriguiging design feature.
You'd think at a certain point I'd get tired of yet another break down of verious sub models of saber, yet here I am enjoying another. Definitley got that type of 'tism.
..I had a friend, "Hambone", that flew FJ-3's. He said that after every carrier landing they had to replace the VFR Radio as it broke on the impact of landing. Other than that he loved flying it.......
It's pertinent to note that by the time the Navy was receiving FJ-3s the USAF was already moving on to the F-100 Super Sabre. It wasn't until the Crusader did the Navy finally receive a jet fighter that was the equal to land based jets.
I remember one morning around '08 working on the flight line at NAS Lemoore when an unusual sight parked on the t-line a few rows over from our squadron. It was a gorgeous FJ-3, glossy gull gray with a red lightning bolt. I wasn't in a hurry so I walked over and got to meet the pilot. One feature of the aircraft I found absolutely fascinating was the self-contained hydraulic servicing system, it contained a small reservoir of fresh hydraulic fluid so the pilot could bleed and service his own system unassisted from a hatch on the side of the fuselage. On the F/A-18 servicing hydraulics after flights was done by a maintainer with a bleed bottle and a portable pump we'd hook up to the dual redundant systems.
great video this channel is an utter gold mine, would love to see some videos on british air to air missiles like the firestreak, fireflash, red top and sraam
Here’s another interesting note about those 20mm cannon. During WW2, due to the great US manufacturing potential, the British had the US manufacture their famous Hispano 20mm cannon. The British version of the gun used very exacting tolerances, as they were typically wing mounted, and jams or misfires could leave a fighter defenseless. Unfortunately the US “military industrial complex” saw the weapon was designated as a “cannon” and therefore would fall under “artillery” jurisdiction. This meant that much looser tolerance variations would be considered acceptable. As a result the US version of the gun had greater tolerances machined into the gun’s receiver. It was soon found that this version of the receiver did not always allow a new shell to be seated/ejected correctly. This resulted in frequent jams/misfires. Did the US quickly change the design to match the British tolerances? They did not! Instead, they packed the 20mm ammunition in heavy grease or wax to try and alleviate the wider tolerance. This resulted in that ammunition being more susceptible to dirt etc, exacerbating the jamming issues. As a result the British did not use the US version of the gun in their aircraft. Notably the P-38 was the only US fighter to be armed with this gun throughout the war, due to the fact the nose mounted cannon could be cleared by the pilot if it jammed (and if not, would still have the four machine guns). The manufacturing of the gun did improve somewhat over time, but only the Navy embraced it in some of their late war fighters (probably due to the Kamikaze threat). I’ve always wondered if the poor performance of this gun in USAAF use, resulted in the USAAF, and later the USAF, shunning the 20mm cannon in favor of the 50 cal until much later.
@@bostonrailfan2427actually the commenter is correct, it’s well discussed in Williams, A.G., and Gustin, E. 2003. Flying Guns: The development of aircraft guns, ammunition, and installations 1933-45
"The Navy's only option was to give it to the Marines." 😆 As a Marine, I resemble that remark. (To be fair to the Navy, we also got the Army's cast-offs.)
it’s not castoffs if they were using them at the same time but you chose to still use them decades after the Army moved on to newer, stringer, better equipment…you also chose to use separate equipment because your brass whined about needing a purpose to continue to exist
@@jeffm68 so sorry my college education offends you, Gyrene, I know how much lead is in the crayons you ingest so it affects your thinking making understanding grammar hard. funny how none of what i said got refuted, but then again penis envy runs deep with you guys so you find any way to complain and avoid the teuth
That or the monstrous cluster that was the Iowa Class' gun setup...it's mentioned above but, the short story version is BuOrd told BuShips the Iowas were to have 16in guns, but failed to mention they were meant to be the old stocks of 16in Mk2s left over from the cancelled 1920s building projects. these needed a bigger turret and turret ring...which physically couuldn't fit in the Iowas, specifically up forward. Somehow it worked out in that we got the excellent 16in/50 Mk7 out of it, but still...
My father was an Air Force Fighter pilot that did a cruise on the Bon Homme Richard in 1957, it was called Exchange Duty. He flew the Fury during that cruise. I believe he also got some time in the Crusader
You may be in a bad place. But you definitely are not alone. Many, many of us are struggling along with you. Different reasons, maybe, but still some really bad soul crushing struggles. I'll hang in there, you hang in there
Me too, bro. Slogging through the meantime between surgeries, hearing things such as "this too shall pass" can sound pretty hollow. But it's true. Hope your "week" gets better.
The F-8 Sabre and F-8 Crusader are my favorite jets. Oh yes, fantastic birds for their services. Would enjoy a spot on the F11F Tiger, great looking plane that it was, if not successful like the Crusader.
10:17 This is a photo taken on the USS Coral Sea CVA-43, as evidenced by the large 43 on the bow. According to online sources she only ever deployed once with the Fury as a part of her air wing (Carrier Air Wing 17). This was in 1955 during a Mediterranean cruise, with VMF-122.
@@bombslayer7305I think his point was that he clicks it _before_ watching because he is so confident he will enjoy the video. He isn't asking "who else actually uses the like button?"
Yeah this is one of the few channels where I am comfortable giving an automatic like. And I definitely want to help him out, he deserves it. Normally I am kind of annoyed by the like button, it's like the damn star rating on eBay. It ought to be to give the exceptional ones a little boost, but they have it set up so by not clicking like or giving anything but five stars is basically penalizing the owner. I would prefer to give five stars for the really good ones but no, you have to feel guilty if you don't give everyone five stars unless they actively screw up your order. I don't want to "like" a video unless I actually thought it was something special, but again there is that pressure. It's less of a big deal than giving less stars on eBay but it is there. I guess that's why they started giving you the option to "super thank" them by giving them a cash tip, because they made the like button meaningless. And I'm sure TH-cam gets their cut out of all of the transactions, so that's totally fine with them. Soon to not get a like will be the same as people hating your video and they will be rewarding those who can generate the most cash donations that they can profit off of, by making the algorithm weight based on donations coming in. If they aren't already doing that. Similar to how people have been steadily making the concept of applause and the standing ovation essentially meaningless by overuse in situations that don't merit it.
Excellent video although the thumbnail carries a slight error. The FJ-3 shown was one of the initial production examples delivered in May 1955, hence being dark sea blue, and wouldn't have carried the Sidewinders with which they became equipped only in mid-1956, by which time the aircraft were painted gull grey over white.
The FJ-2/3 Fury's was rendered obsolete by F-3H Demon(a faster fighter equipped with afterburner and AIM-7C Sparrows) less than 2 years after it's introduction. Then, 4 years after FJ-2/4 entered service, F-4 Phantom made it's maiden flight. So the FJ-2/3 Fury was basically dead on arrival due to the rapid technological developments.
It's amazing how fast technology was improving, that you could design a modern airplane but before it was produced better technology and a better aircraft was already in prototype face or ready to come out in some cases. Of course that also came at the cost of lots of very brave test pilots, the 1950s were crazy in everything to do with military. (Okay soldier, we just detonated a nuke, now walk until you're underneath the mushroom cloud)
@@toddabowden Walking underneath the mushroom cloud wasn't that crazy for those days. In Operation Plumbbob’s John-test there were actually 6 soldiers underneath the actual nuclear detonation to show that detonations in the upper atmosphere would be safe to the general population. That was in the days when Russians bomber streams were supposed to be stopped by nuclear-tipped missiles.
The '50s were a second Golden Age of Aviation, with its breath-taking pace of progress--the 1920s and '30s often called 'The Golden Age' because of the rapid pace at that time.
I still fail to understand how does angling the guns downwards help anything in turn fights. In a turn fight pilot needs to lead his target. How does making the guns point below the nose help anything?
@@Jo-rz6bsindeed. Which means to help gunnery in a turn fight you would need to counter this by tilting the guns UP, in order to move the point of impact in a turn above the nose instead of below. Tilting them down will just move to point of impact further below the nose?
I presume it has to do with the three Gs the plane is pulling. The only way you can pull positive Gs is in a fairly tight turn, loop, or split S. The effect of these Gs is to create an upward acceleration of the projectiles above the line of sight of the gun barrels relative to the target. In other words the rounds are climbing above the target in a greater arc than they would if the two aircraft were flying straight and level. Since practically all dogfighting involves constant turning, diving, and climbing, having your gun barrels tilted downward will counteract the effect of the increased bullet arc that results. But if you are ambushing an unsuspecting aircraft or bombers flying straight and level, you are now shooting too low. Added to this is the effect of spin on a projectile. The flight path of projectiles will curve toward the direction of their longitudinal spin. From the shooter’s perspective this means rounds spinning clockwise will curve to the right and those spinning counterclockwise will curve to the left. This is called the Magnus Effect, and applies to any object that is rotating along its axis while moving through the air. It’s caused by the difference in air pressure from one side of a spin to the opposite side. Think of it as akin to the torque or gyroscopic effect that caused planes such as the Sopwith Camel to snap sharply to the right and turn sluggishly to the left. Now imagine some pilot in aerial combat trying to maneuver his fighter while simultaneously estimating range, bullet arc, and curve while aiming at a target and trying to avoid being jumped by another aircraft - all at the same time. It’s amazing they hit anything.
I read about the fury gun problem in those wide but short squadron signals publications in action books that you could pick up in any hobby store and was a cheap way for me to read up on more planes long before the internet offered up information on even the most obscure aircraft It's such an "oh that blows" moment when to fix a gun accuracy problem you have to redesign a good chunk of an aircraft in a very expensive way That said the fury was possibly one of the least painful adaptations of a land-based plane to carrier-borne service and while the carrier equipment took a small chunk out of performance at least it wasn't as bad as adapting a spitfire to operate from a boat where's the narrow undercarriage meant that you had to operate them from seas a full bathtub but nobody in it calm
I really appreciate the depth you go into on these, NAPFATG. Just knowing the TRUE reputation for the 20mm Hispano gun, laid out in a few words, is worth more than hours of armchair comparisons of fighter qualities based on paper stats, rather than how the system actually worked out in service.
He is talking about the Colt Mk12 here, and the issues weren't with the gun, it was the installation. Most of the issues with the gun came down to installation, the feed system, etc. The Hispano was the gun that tried to adopt in WW2 and screwed up by making the chambers too long and refusing to fix it for several years.
Maybe I’m missing something by why couldn’t they correct the gun aiming issue with the sights? The fighter was equipped with a radar assisted aiming pip which was supposed to automatically calculate range and adjust for bullet drop. So if the guns were set to shoot high, as if the plane was in a 3G turn, why couldn’t a correction have been plugged into the sight? All the inputs are known, airspeed, full ob, and g load.
Getting near the end of the video I was bummed the FJ-4 hasn't been touched on. Glad it's getting its own video. (Which makes sense as it is further removed from the FJ-2 and 3 than they were from each other.) BTW, I really like the use of the art that graced the box of ESCI's FJ2/3 Fury kit in your thumbnail! Where did you find a clean sample of it?
Its the "Hawaiian good luck sign" lol. I'm pretty sure flipping people off and calling it the "Hawaiian good luck sign" was an in service tradition and joke before the hostages from the USS pueblo in 1968 did it to the N. Koreans.
"Is it useless?" "Is it obsolete?" Given to the Marines. One would think that giving the best equipment top our front-line troops would be in our own best interest. sigh
I suppose it makes sense. The Marines aviators were only supposed to support the troops on the ground, while the Navy was supposed to take care of the most advanced fighters (and bombers) any enemy had to offer, so it makes some sense that the Navy got the best planes and the Marines got the hand-me-downs.
The U.S. Navy's only option for the Fury was to give it to the Marines! Ouch but true. My mother's second husband was in the Marines in transport in the early to mid 1980s. He said they'd receive shipments of vehicles from the U.S. Army as the Marines had a low budget back then. He said they just painted over the U.S.ARMY with the letters USMC. He'd laugh it off.
@@MM22966 Yup. Rex is one of my favorite aviation channels along with Ed Nash and Gregg's Airplanes and Automobiles. But Not a Pound has earned the top crown since he came a long. NO disrespect to those other great folks, he has just reset the standard.
So I'm just a touch confused by the description. If a pilot were flying straight and level... would the guns be firing "high" over a target straight ahead" or "low" below a target? Because high I can understand being a touch annoying, but easy enough to compensate for with a little practice, as well as a well designed gunsight. But aiming "low" by default would just make things even harder if you're in a turn and trying to hit something below the nose.
"Whaddya mean the guys flying it say it doesn’tshoot right? How dare they question the Military Industrial Complex! My diploma shows I'm smarter than them and my slide rule calculations prove... PROVE that I'm right!" 🧐
It seems weird to me that they had no issue redesigning the rear fuselage and intake, presumably the whole duct, to accommodate a new engine, but it was too expensive and difficult to retool to fix the cannon issue. I assume that only applied to the first contracts, but couldn't they cancel it, change to a new contract? Like it can't have been cheaper to tool up for the Sapphire version. But maybe the budget was different that year, who knows.
At 10:13, you show Marine Furys on the flight deck of, as you state, Midway. Deck number states that it’s the Coral Sea, CVA-43, not -41. A Midway *class* boat, but not Midway herself.
Someone with more knowledge on the subject may be able to enlighten us. When the Navy did the calculations required for working out the angle of the cannons for the desired aiming point relative to the roll centre, fuel load & speed, what would be the angle difference be for a normal aiming point? The mounting of cannons and older machine guns must have had some kind of screw adjustment built into them for tolerances. Was the aiming off that much?
@@PauloPereira-jj4jv Either version is acceptable. In fact, if you check in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, you will find that 'nonetheless' is not even defined other than as a variant of 'none the less'.
Rule of thumb : You design the carrier aircraft first then make a lighter land-based version, if you want a VTOL version, you dev it from the land-based one, i.e the F-4 Phantom, the the Mirage-III => Mirage-IIIV... Attempts at doing the contrary weren't successful. The same mistake was done with the F-35 !!!
Ah, BeauOrd, the people who gave us the mk 14 torpedo, and refused to believe it didn't work.
Beat me to it.
Yeah, my thoughts exactly. If ever a bunch of idiots needed to be made an example of, it was those clowns.
And you assume that they are the same exact people who approved the Mk14, all still working there a decade or two later? Or just that the BuOrd has this amazing tradition of only accepting the most incompetent applicants so they can keep up an institutional incompetence over generations, even as the personnel change? Do they get any credit for all the very successful weapon systems the Navy adopted, or do you take the position that the 5"/45 and the proximity fuse, the Bofors, the F6F, the Mk48, Standard missile, etc, were all adopted in _spite_ it them, not because of them, and they only get the blame for the things that didn't work out?
Another BuOrd stuff-up was the construction of the Iowa class Battleships. They ended up being a huge success anyway, but the whole program was almost doomed from the start due in part to a BuOrd miscommunication.
Congress and the Navy signed-off on what would become the Iowa class Battleships partly as a means of exploiting an existing asset; the Mk.2 and Mk.3 16-inch guns leftover from the 1920s (which were build for the cancelled Lexington class Battlecruisers and South Dakota class Battleships; no relation to the South Dakota class Battleships commissioned in the 1940s). Developing new major-caliber guns from scratch was notoriously difficult, and the longer gun tube of the Mk.2/3 made them more powerful, accurate, and longer-ranged than the shorter 16-inch guns already used on US Battleships, even when using the same projectiles and powder charges.
However, the Navy had gotten accustomed to the new Mk.6 16-inch guns used on the North Carolina and (1940) South Dakota class, which were slimmer, lighter, and with less felt recoil than the older and cruder Mk.2/3. That meand a 3-gun turret on these new Battleships didn't need as wide a turret ring as their predecessors, and a 3-gun turret with the Mk.6 only needed a 16-foot diameter turret ring, compared to an 18-foot diameter ring for a 30-gun turret with the Mk.2/3.
Starting to see what went wrong here? BuOrd communicated to BuShips that the Iowa class were to have 16" guns, but failed to mention that the Mk.2/3 required an 18-foot turret ring; BuShips, assuming the Mk.6 or a similar new gun was to be used, designed the Iowa class with a 16-foot turret ring...
...and the miscommunication wasn't discovered until the Iowa was already under construction!
That forced the Navy to contract Waverleit Arsenal to hastily develop a Mk.6 gun with a longer gun tube, eventually resulting in the Mk.7 gun used on the Iowa class. Lots of time and money was unnecessarily wasted in the development of the Iowa class while the ongoing Second World War was visibly creeping-up on the US, simply because BuOrd and BuShips didn't think to co-ordinate their efforts. *The BuOrd and BuShips offices were only 4 miles apart.*
@@BlacktailDefense I had never heard that one before! Thanks!
OH WOW, My Dad was in the Marines assigned as jet mechanic to VMF-333 squadron, and he probably worked on the FJ-3 shown at 11:46. That image gets thrown around a lot when the FJ-3 comes up. I still have his squadron patches. 😀
I was in VMFA-333 76-79 and did the first cruise on the USS Nimitz with F-4J's.
Flying Shamrocks, baby :-)
Now that you mention the angled guns, I can't unsee it. The gun ports are angled. They always were angled. And I never noticed.
It's called converging fire.
@@31terikennedy watch the video before you comment. It's not converging fire. It's intentionally offset for a 3G turn.
@@thereddaikon Oops. I understood to mean they adjusted the sights.
@@thereddaikon Come to think about it, it still converging fire adjusted for an offset point of aim.
@@31terikennedy convergence is used for weapons spaced further apart. there's generally no convergence with weapons spaced this closely together as there's no need.
The calm voice briefing me on obsolete aircraft is very therapeutic.
I prefer the obsolete radars and missiles, but the planes are good too.
Did you say Nike Hercules? My soft spot is Cold War and modern interceptors
Well I’m British, so I said “Bloodhound”, but the Nike series are also fascinating.
@richardnicklin654 British weapon naming has a cool shibilith, I guess it could be called.
I'd like to submit "Brimstone" as a follow-up to yours.
You would have like my radar at Ft Bragg TAC had inherited a Marine TPS-1
It didn't have much range but we found it good at tracking 155mm shells and we could tell where they hit ,dust, mud or swamp water by the return.
THAT'S IT! As well as the wonderfully researched presentation and images and videos I often haven't seen over my now many years - that calm voice bringing us not only great information but the driest of wits is indeed most therapeutic.
I'm a plane guy, but Not a Pound brings the missile/radar info in a way that keeps me interested for sure.
3G turn at 500 knots with a 50% fuel level. Works "most" of the time if the pilot happens to be in that engagement profile. I wonder who signed off on this intriguiging design feature.
Must have been on a Friday night in the officers bar, after a good few bottles of liquid persuasion. One signing thought he was signing a bar chit.
They were surely conosiurs of the Sex Panther- 60% of the time works every time
You'd think at a certain point I'd get tired of yet another break down of verious sub models of saber, yet here I am enjoying another. Definitley got that type of 'tism.
At 1:15 you can see two officers giving a rather unusual salute to the pilots-with their middle fingers.
They probably knew about the way the guns were mounted and didn’t tell their fellow pilots as a prank 😂
“Flight Surgeon.” Gotta wonder what Doc had against that pilot 😂.
..I had a friend, "Hambone", that flew FJ-3's. He said that after every carrier landing they had to replace the VFR Radio as it broke on the impact of landing. Other than that he loved flying it.......
It's pertinent to note that by the time the Navy was receiving FJ-3s the USAF was already moving on to the F-100 Super Sabre. It wasn't until the Crusader did the Navy finally receive a jet fighter that was the equal to land based jets.
This was cause they were waiting on the Forestall class to come online so they could launch modern heavy aircraft.
Love this channel. I appreciate that you don't use any music so i can run the old Discovery Wings theme in my head while you narrate.
I remember one morning around '08 working on the flight line at NAS Lemoore when an unusual sight parked on the t-line a few rows over from our squadron. It was a gorgeous FJ-3, glossy gull gray with a red lightning bolt. I wasn't in a hurry so I walked over and got to meet the pilot. One feature of the aircraft I found absolutely fascinating was the self-contained hydraulic servicing system, it contained a small reservoir of fresh hydraulic fluid so the pilot could bleed and service his own system unassisted from a hatch on the side of the fuselage. On the F/A-18 servicing hydraulics after flights was done by a maintainer with a bleed bottle and a portable pump we'd hook up to the dual redundant systems.
great video this channel is an utter gold mine, would love to see some videos on british air to air missiles like the firestreak, fireflash, red top and sraam
SAMEE
Here’s another interesting note about those 20mm cannon. During WW2, due to the great US manufacturing potential, the British had the US manufacture their famous Hispano 20mm cannon. The British version of the gun used very exacting tolerances, as they were typically wing mounted, and jams or misfires could leave a fighter defenseless. Unfortunately the US “military industrial complex” saw the weapon was designated as a “cannon” and therefore would fall under “artillery” jurisdiction. This meant that much looser tolerance variations would be considered acceptable.
As a result the US version of the gun had greater tolerances machined into the gun’s receiver. It was soon found that this version of the receiver did not always allow a new shell to be seated/ejected correctly. This resulted in frequent jams/misfires.
Did the US quickly change the design to match the British tolerances? They did not! Instead, they packed the 20mm ammunition in heavy grease or wax to try and alleviate the wider tolerance. This resulted in that ammunition being more susceptible to dirt etc, exacerbating the jamming issues. As a result the British did not use the US version of the gun in their aircraft.
Notably the P-38 was the only US fighter to be armed with this gun throughout the war, due to the fact the nose mounted cannon could be cleared by the pilot if it jammed (and if not, would still have the four machine guns). The manufacturing of the gun did improve somewhat over time, but only the Navy embraced it in some of their late war fighters (probably due to the Kamikaze threat).
I’ve always wondered if the poor performance of this gun in USAAF use, resulted in the USAAF, and later the USAF, shunning the 20mm cannon in favor of the 50 cal until much later.
source of the claim: “trust me, bro”
funny how those claims came about years after and on jets not on the propeller planes of Wwii
@@bostonrailfan2427actually the commenter is correct, it’s well discussed in Williams, A.G., and Gustin, E. 2003. Flying Guns: The development of aircraft guns, ammunition, and installations 1933-45
@ sure it was…sure it was…
@@bostonrailfan2427it sure was
"The Navy's only option was to give it to the Marines." 😆
As a Marine, I resemble that remark. (To be fair to the Navy, we also got the Army's cast-offs.)
USMC, doing the most with the least for ages. 🍻🍻🍻
it’s not castoffs if they were using them at the same time but you chose to still use them decades after the Army moved on to newer, stringer, better equipment…you also chose to use separate equipment because your brass whined about needing a purpose to continue to exist
@@bostonrailfan2427 Punctuation is important, Army. Bye.
@@jeffm68 so sorry my college education offends you, Gyrene, I know how much lead is in the crayons you ingest so it affects your thinking making understanding grammar hard.
funny how none of what i said got refuted, but then again penis envy runs deep with you guys so you find any way to complain and avoid the teuth
Thank you for all your work and research that goes into these videos.
Some of my favorite videos on TH-cam.
This has become my favorite history channel 🤝
Hello fellow nerd
Another W Rustbelt video AND 20 minutes long, this feels awesome!
Why do I get the weird feeling the gun development team for the Fury originally worked at the Navy Bureau of Ordinance, Mk14 torpedo section?
That or the monstrous cluster that was the Iowa Class' gun setup...it's mentioned above but, the short story version is BuOrd told BuShips the Iowas were to have 16in guns, but failed to mention they were meant to be the old stocks of 16in Mk2s left over from the cancelled 1920s building projects. these needed a bigger turret and turret ring...which physically couuldn't fit in the Iowas, specifically up forward. Somehow it worked out in that we got the excellent 16in/50 Mk7 out of it, but still...
And so my Friday evening begins
My father was an Air Force Fighter pilot that did a cruise on the Bon Homme Richard in 1957, it was called Exchange Duty. He flew the Fury during that cruise. I believe he also got some time in the Crusader
This stuff gets me through the week….. I may be in a bad place.
Well, hard work and self dicipline will get you out of it, Therapy and such mumbo jumbo will not.
Take care mate, spend some time doing stuff you enjoy, and don’t let negativity rule your life (hard as that may feel)
You may be in a bad place. But you definitely are not alone. Many, many of us are struggling along with you. Different reasons, maybe, but still some really bad soul crushing struggles. I'll hang in there, you hang in there
Remember always that you are a man and expected to act accordingly.🫵🏻😉
Me too, bro. Slogging through the meantime between surgeries, hearing things such as "this too shall pass" can sound pretty hollow. But it's true.
Hope your "week" gets better.
Great narration and clever opinions. Thanks for these.
Finally a nice documentary on the fury..
F8U Crusader: next please. And "Oh, the FJ-4, of course." said Marion Carl.
The F-8 Sabre and F-8 Crusader are my favorite jets. Oh yes, fantastic birds for their services.
Would enjoy a spot on the F11F Tiger, great looking plane that it was, if not successful like the Crusader.
Bravo! Another wonderful video on my favorite post-war genre; the "nifty fifties". Well done, keep 'em coming!
Ah another great video by the Drach of early jet era. Good job sir.
Much awaited, much appreciated looking forward to excellent insights as always from you.
Thank you! I have long awaited an in-depth review of the Fury. They are part of my early childhood recollections.
Finally a documentary on the fury...that is accurate
As a kid during the 1960s, one if my very first glue together models was the Fury.
The happiness of a man in this life does not consist in the absence but in the mastery of his passions.
I was looking for this video earlier today and was sad it didn't exist, I'm happy again now.
I am looking forward to you video every friday and as usual it didn't disappoint no matter what the subject is
"...so useless, the Navy's only option was to give it to the Marines." Oof, as a Gyrene myself, I feel that. All through our history we've felt that.
10:17
This is a photo taken on the USS Coral Sea CVA-43, as evidenced by the large 43 on the bow. According to online sources she only ever deployed once with the Fury as a part of her air wing (Carrier Air Wing 17). This was in 1955 during a Mediterranean cruise, with VMF-122.
he corrected it in the bottom left post-recording
Who else clicks the thumbs up button before they watch the whole video?
I do it to mark that I have watched it. I guess it helps the creator also.
@@bombslayer7305 as does commenting
@@bombslayer7305I think his point was that he clicks it _before_ watching because he is so confident he will enjoy the video. He isn't asking "who else actually uses the like button?"
Yeah this is one of the few channels where I am comfortable giving an automatic like. And I definitely want to help him out, he deserves it. Normally I am kind of annoyed by the like button, it's like the damn star rating on eBay. It ought to be to give the exceptional ones a little boost, but they have it set up so by not clicking like or giving anything but five stars is basically penalizing the owner. I would prefer to give five stars for the really good ones but no, you have to feel guilty if you don't give everyone five stars unless they actively screw up your order. I don't want to "like" a video unless I actually thought it was something special, but again there is that pressure. It's less of a big deal than giving less stars on eBay but it is there. I guess that's why they started giving you the option to "super thank" them by giving them a cash tip, because they made the like button meaningless. And I'm sure TH-cam gets their cut out of all of the transactions, so that's totally fine with them. Soon to not get a like will be the same as people hating your video and they will be rewarding those who can generate the most cash donations that they can profit off of, by making the algorithm weight based on donations coming in. If they aren't already doing that.
Similar to how people have been steadily making the concept of applause and the standing ovation essentially meaningless by overuse in situations that don't merit it.
This channel never disappoints
Excellent video although the thumbnail carries a slight error. The FJ-3 shown was one of the initial production examples delivered in May 1955, hence being dark sea blue, and wouldn't have carried the Sidewinders with which they became equipped only in mid-1956, by which time the aircraft were painted gull grey over white.
Genuine sincerity opens people's hearts, while manipulation causes them to close.
This is an iconic aircraft shape, and easy to draw as a kid. 😝
So useless they had to give it to the Marines. Lol.
Sounds about right.
LAWL !
F4u Corsair : Hold my beer
Surprised they didn't bolt another engine on and pack it with firepower like they did with the cobra 😆
A tale as old as time
My lunchtime Friday viewing has arrived 🙂👍
The thick foliage and intertwined vines made the hike nearly impossible.
Good work bro! Keep it up
Niiiiiice. Love your videos, man!
Love the videos. Good work.
This is a great video and very historical
Great video, as always!
The FJ-2/3 Fury's was rendered obsolete by F-3H Demon(a faster fighter equipped with afterburner and AIM-7C Sparrows) less than 2 years after it's introduction. Then, 4 years after FJ-2/4 entered service, F-4 Phantom made it's maiden flight. So the FJ-2/3 Fury was basically dead on arrival due to the rapid technological developments.
It's amazing how fast technology was improving, that you could design a modern airplane but before it was produced better technology and a better aircraft was already in prototype face or ready to come out in some cases. Of course that also came at the cost of lots of very brave test pilots, the 1950s were crazy in everything to do with military. (Okay soldier, we just detonated a nuke, now walk until you're underneath the mushroom cloud)
@@toddabowden Walking underneath the mushroom cloud wasn't that crazy for those days. In Operation Plumbbob’s John-test there were actually 6 soldiers underneath the actual nuclear detonation to show that detonations in the upper atmosphere would be safe to the general population. That was in the days when Russians bomber streams were supposed to be stopped by nuclear-tipped missiles.
The '50s were a second Golden Age of Aviation, with its breath-taking pace of progress--the 1920s and '30s often called 'The Golden Age' because of the rapid pace at that time.
The F3h was never supersonic and could barely stay in the air let alone go Supersonic
@@prowlus Another promising design hamstrung by its engine. I thought the Demon was a really good-looking airplane.
We need more carrier mishap videos!
Can’t wait for the next episode with the FJ4B
Beautiful paint schemes. I mess those colours.
I still fail to understand how does angling the guns downwards help anything in turn fights. In a turn fight pilot needs to lead his target. How does making the guns point below the nose help anything?
The effective line moves downwards, even if the guns don't, since shells tend to fly straight.
@@Jo-rz6bsindeed. Which means to help gunnery in a turn fight you would need to counter this by tilting the guns UP, in order to move the point of impact in a turn above the nose instead of below. Tilting them down will just move to point of impact further below the nose?
I presume it has to do with the three Gs the plane is pulling. The only way you can pull positive Gs is in a fairly tight turn, loop, or split S. The effect of these Gs is to create an upward acceleration of the projectiles above the line of sight of the gun barrels relative to the target. In other words the rounds are climbing above the target in a greater arc than they would if the two aircraft were flying straight and level. Since practically all dogfighting involves constant turning, diving, and climbing, having your gun barrels tilted downward will counteract the effect of the increased bullet arc that results. But if you are ambushing an unsuspecting aircraft or bombers flying straight and level, you are now shooting too low.
Added to this is the effect of spin on a projectile. The flight path of projectiles will curve toward the direction of their longitudinal spin. From the shooter’s perspective this means rounds spinning clockwise will curve to the right and those spinning counterclockwise will curve to the left. This is called the Magnus Effect, and applies to any object that is rotating along its axis while moving through the air. It’s caused by the difference in air pressure from one side of a spin to the opposite side. Think of it as akin to the torque or gyroscopic effect that caused planes such as the Sopwith Camel to snap sharply to the right and turn sluggishly to the left.
Now imagine some pilot in aerial combat trying to maneuver his fighter while simultaneously estimating range, bullet arc, and curve while aiming at a target and trying to avoid being jumped by another aircraft - all at the same time. It’s amazing they hit anything.
I read about the fury gun problem in those wide but short squadron signals publications in action books that you could pick up in any hobby store and was a cheap way for me to read up on more planes long before the internet offered up information on even the most obscure aircraft
It's such an "oh that blows" moment when to fix a gun accuracy problem you have to redesign a good chunk of an aircraft in a very expensive way
That said the fury was possibly one of the least painful adaptations of a land-based plane to carrier-borne service and while the carrier equipment took a small chunk out of performance at least it wasn't as bad as adapting a spitfire to operate from a boat where's the narrow undercarriage meant that you had to operate them from seas a full bathtub but nobody in it calm
I really appreciate the depth you go into on these, NAPFATG. Just knowing the TRUE reputation for the 20mm Hispano gun, laid out in a few words, is worth more than hours of armchair comparisons of fighter qualities based on paper stats, rather than how the system actually worked out in service.
He is talking about the Colt Mk12 here, and the issues weren't with the gun, it was the installation. Most of the issues with the gun came down to installation, the feed system, etc. The Hispano was the gun that tried to adopt in WW2 and screwed up by making the chambers too long and refusing to fix it for several years.
@@justforever96 Ah, did I mix them up, then?
4:56 That's a totally fascinating picture.
Maybe I’m missing something by why couldn’t they correct the gun aiming issue with the sights? The fighter was equipped with a radar assisted aiming pip which was supposed to automatically calculate range and adjust for bullet drop.
So if the guns were set to shoot high, as if the plane was in a 3G turn, why couldn’t a correction have been plugged into the sight? All the inputs are known, airspeed, full ob, and g load.
Getting near the end of the video I was bummed the FJ-4 hasn't been touched on. Glad it's getting its own video. (Which makes sense as it is further removed from the FJ-2 and 3 than they were from each other.) BTW, I really like the use of the art that graced the box of ESCI's FJ2/3 Fury kit in your thumbnail! Where did you find a clean sample of it?
What's with the middle finger in the sequence from 1:00 to 1:30 roughly?
Guess he’s not a fan of the fury
Its the "Hawaiian good luck sign" lol.
I'm pretty sure flipping people off and calling it the "Hawaiian good luck sign" was an in service tradition and joke before the hostages from the USS pueblo in 1968 did it to the N. Koreans.
@smugly6793
Those are USAF sabres...
@@stinkyfungus Yep you’re right
I was too busy looking at Mr Middle Finger lol
So it sounds like the Fury was the perfect fighter to have if you expected to not need a fighter.
"Is it useless?" "Is it obsolete?" Given to the Marines. One would think that giving the best equipment top our front-line troops would be in our own best interest. sigh
Do the most with the least. I know I heard that somewhere one time.😂
I suppose it makes sense. The Marines aviators were only supposed to support the troops on the ground, while the Navy was supposed to take care of the most advanced fighters (and bombers) any enemy had to offer, so it makes some sense that the Navy got the best planes and the Marines got the hand-me-downs.
Yeah some say that the marines gettting an entire version of the f35 for themselfs kinda broke them
I was a USAF radar operator and our TAC detachment was using a Marine surplus TPS-1 radar 😞
National Guard has had that problem for centuries, Reserves for a century…they have zero to whine about because they aren’t alone in that!
The U.S. Navy's only option for the Fury was to give it to the Marines! Ouch but true. My mother's second husband was in the Marines in transport in the early to mid 1980s. He said they'd receive shipments of vehicles from the U.S. Army as the Marines had a low budget back then. He said they just painted over the U.S.ARMY with the letters USMC. He'd laugh it off.
Oh well, it was better then nothing. Thanks for the weapon history!
To be aware of a single shortcoming in oneself is more useful than to be aware of a thousand in someone else.
Was this the same bureau that managed the Mk. 14 torpedo development during WWII?
Thankfully no, that was the Bureau of Ordnance. This was the Bureau of Aviation.
Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence.
Thanks
Does the source material exist to do a proper presentation of WWI Fighters? That is just such an interesting era of aviation history.
There are some other channels that have done that topic.
Go to Rex's Hangar. An Aussie, he has a wide range of WW1 and inter-war aircraft covered.
@@MM22966 Yup. Rex is one of my favorite aviation channels along with Ed Nash and Gregg's Airplanes and Automobiles. But Not a Pound has earned the top crown since he came a long. NO disrespect to those other great folks, he has just reset the standard.
Does anybody know why the Flight Surgon is flipping off the pilots @ 1:15 ?
😂😂😂
US 20mm's seem to have been dogs for a LONG TIME
Was the gun sighting “feature” fixed on the FJ-4?
The FJ-2, and -3 Furies had the same dihedral on the tail planes as the F-86.
So I'm just a touch confused by the description. If a pilot were flying straight and level... would the guns be firing "high" over a target straight ahead" or "low" below a target?
Because high I can understand being a touch annoying, but easy enough to compensate for with a little practice, as well as a well designed gunsight. But aiming "low" by default would just make things even harder if you're in a turn and trying to hit something below the nose.
"Whaddya mean the guys flying it say it doesn’tshoot right? How dare they question the Military Industrial Complex! My diploma shows I'm smarter than them and my slide rule calculations prove... PROVE that I'm right!" 🧐
🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯
Wait... the cannons are angled DOWN? No no noooo! LOL! The Tomcat's cannon is angled *up* and it's quite helpful! (In DCS, anyway.)
It seems weird to me that they had no issue redesigning the rear fuselage and intake, presumably the whole duct, to accommodate a new engine, but it was too expensive and difficult to retool to fix the cannon issue. I assume that only applied to the first contracts, but couldn't they cancel it, change to a new contract? Like it can't have been cheaper to tool up for the Sapphire version. But maybe the budget was different that year, who knows.
At 10:13, you show Marine Furys on the flight deck of, as you state, Midway. Deck number states that it’s the Coral Sea, CVA-43, not -41. A Midway *class* boat, but not Midway herself.
it was corrected if you look closer
"so useless that the Navy gave it to the Marines", so you woke up and chose to throw shade.
Yeah, some designs work better on land than they do at sea!
Doesn’t the Tomcat have an upwards gun as well?
Interesting.
Someone with more knowledge on the subject may be able to enlighten us. When the Navy did the calculations required for working out the angle of the cannons for the desired aiming point relative to the roll centre, fuel load & speed, what would be the angle difference be for a normal aiming point? The mounting of cannons and older machine guns must have had some kind of screw adjustment built into them for tolerances. Was the aiming off that much?
Let's see, your thumbnail photo is the box art from the ESCI (Italy) 1/48 scale North American Fury plastic kit.
Great video. No RAAF avon powered and 30mm armed F86 video but ok none the less.
"Nonetheless". One word.
@@PauloPereira-jj4jv I bet you're fun at parties
@@PauloPereira-jj4jv is dick head one word or two?
@@PauloPereira-jj4jv Either version is acceptable. In fact, if you check in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, you will find that 'nonetheless' is not even defined other than as a variant of 'none the less'.
Now cover the FJ4/B Fury.
It was so useless that the Navy gave it to the Marines 😬
For all that went wrong... they did get an upgraded livery, lol.
CV 43 is the Coral Sea
CV 42 is the FDR
he corrected it after recording, if you bothered to look
Why worry about tomorrow, when today is all we have?
Couldn't they just bend the barrels a little to zero them out?
I love/hate this dinky little thing; the rectangular intake makes it look like it's constantly screaming in pain.
So...... Great plane.. but difficult to hit targets with Canon's .
*_"Oops."_*
I don't understand why the guns weren't steered with the radar
It's easy to understand when you realize this bird had no radar.
@@dillank3240 it did have an APG radar
Love the old Esci box art in the thumbnail. Really crappy kit, but the box art sucked me in…
Must have been the same guys that designed the USN WWII torpedo that did the cannon specs ...
Flight Surgeon isn't happy about something.
Why are those guys flipping off the planes?
If you spent time around fighter pilots you would understand. My fighter pilot dad would covertly present the finger for all pictures I took of him.
Rule of thumb : You design the carrier aircraft first then make a lighter land-based version, if you want a VTOL version, you dev it from the land-based one, i.e the F-4 Phantom, the the Mirage-III => Mirage-IIIV...
Attempts at doing the contrary weren't successful. The same mistake was done with the F-35 !!!
Nos adepto vestri crap was considered as the Marine Corps motto...
so could it be fair to say, the biggest issue on the -2 and -3 fury was the guns? otherwise it was a fairly decent aircraft