The first 15 years of jet development amaze me 1944 - 1959 and the F4 is STILL in service

@Batmack

Ай бұрын

Of course, we mean that F4 that was originally conceived to be a naval fighter, but was also used on the ground and even when fully deployed its wings bent up in a dihedral

@TexasSpectre

Ай бұрын

It was originally built to be a very good missile truck and it’s still viable as a missile truck - just want to avoid getting into a furball with more recent fighters.

@derrickstorm6976

Ай бұрын

​@@Batmackwhat does any of that have to do with it being still in service?

@derrickstorm6976

Ай бұрын

​@@TexasSpectreyou mean to say that any jet from the 50's could still be in service if they could just carry modern missiles? A good joke for sure

@TexasSpectre

Ай бұрын

@@derrickstorm6976 No, because pretty much all of them were gun fighters. Just being able to carry missiles wasn't enough - it had to have been designed to be a missile truck.

Is anyone else amazed that this channel is almost a year old now? It's feel like just yesterday I found this awesome new aviation channel with only 2 videos uploaded! And now, here we are, a year has gone by and we keep getting great content weekly! Also, have these videos become a "Friday Lunch Break Ritual" for anyone else? I'm always tempted to start watching them before my lunch break, but I'd rather watch them start to finish!

@karlfranz3819

Ай бұрын

Same, he really reminds me of drach. Amazing videos every week

@karlfranz3819

Ай бұрын

Same, great video for my lunch break, what more could you wish?

@jona.scholt4362

Ай бұрын

@@karlfranz3819 Wednesday lunch break is Drach's "Rum Ration Wednesday", though those videos are usually so long I end up watching most of them after work. If you like this channel and Drach, I highly recommend Polyus, an aircraft channel on all things Canadian Aerospace (sounds niche, but I promise it's great) He doesn't upload often anymore but his videos are high quality and similar to "Not a Pound".

@jona.scholt4362

Ай бұрын

@@karlfranz3819 Wednesday lunch break is Drach's "Rum Ration Wednesday", though those videos are usually so long I end up watching most of them after work. If you like this channel and Drach, I highly recommend Polyus, an aircraft channel on all things Canadian Aerospace (sounds niche, but I promise it's great) He doesn't upload often anymore but his videos are high quality and similar to "Not a Pound". Note; I made the same comment but it seems to have been randomly deleted; hopefully this one sticks!

@jona.scholt4362

Ай бұрын

@@karlfranz3819 Wednesday lunch break is Drach's "Rum Ration Wednesday", though those videos are usually so long I end up watching most of them after work. If you like this channel and Drach, I highly recommend Polyus, an aircraft channel on all things Canadian Aerospace (sounds niche, but I promise it's great) He doesn't upload often anymore but his videos are high quality and similar to "Not a Pound". Note; I tried to post this same comment before but it was randomly deleted so I hope this one sticks!

Wow, that was really neat footage of the banshees refueling in-flight from a seaplane at around the 6 minute mark. Great selection of clips to accompany the narration.

@chriskortan1530

Ай бұрын

Yes! I immediately noticed the relatively rare R3Y Tradewind. I've always liked the anachronism of basically WW2 propeller planes fueling atomic age jets. In this case, an obsolescent seaplane to boot!

@hawkertyphoon4537

Ай бұрын

@@chriskortan1530 i was thinking "Mars! M;ars...?! What the heck is THIS!?" Thanks for the headsup!

Hughes FCS enthusaist here-I'm not sure about it being "E-10". The cannon FCSes were generally MG series, and the switchology, though the layout was altered significantly from the F-86K installation, aligns with the MG-4 FCS of the F-86K. The use of the APG-37 radar also aligns with the MG-4.

Looks like that thumbnail photo is from the old 1/72 scale, Hobbycraft (Canada), McDonnell F2H "Banjo," plastic model kit. Excellent story on this lesser known, 1950s naval jet fighter and thanks for sharing!

@jonathanhudak2059

Ай бұрын

Indeed it is! Have seen that kit around at several a vendors table at model shows over the past 2 decades! Never grabbed one yet but I do have the MPC and Academy variants in the stash to build 😊

@ottovonbismarck2443

Ай бұрын

It looked so familiar ! As we're speaking, I am blowing dust off my old 1/72 Airfix kit. Shouldn't have started it, now the other kits want a dust-off, too.

@lancerevell5979

Ай бұрын

I have built two of these kits - one in USMC markings and one in Canadian markings. Good model, far better than the old 1/48 Hawk kit of the earlier Banshee.

@jonathanhudak2059

Ай бұрын

​@ottovonbismarck2443 feel your pain on started kits lol! Every modeler has their shelf of doom so to speak hahaha!

@ottovonbismarck2443

Ай бұрын

@@jonathanhudak2059 They were already done in the 90s (last century). It's dust on wings.🙂 But oc there's the shelf of doom as well, a Matchbox Lancaster, a Revell S-boat, a scratch-built S-boat, the old Airfix RAF Motor Launch ... And the "cemetary of treasures" inluding an Airfix Sunderland and a Catalina and the Revell (old Matchbox) Flower Class corvette ... At least I remember these; there are more ...

Awwww, please don't diss the Douglas F3D Skyknight an aircraft which has a strong place in my heart thanks to the Rareplanes Vacuform kit and a bus ride to Croydon on a day off work in the long hot summer of 1983 😁. Yes I would like a Skyknight video please, hint, hint. Great work on the fabulous "big banjo".

@petesheppard1709

Ай бұрын

Even though it was too heavy for carrier use, it served with success in the Marines, both as a night fighter in Korea and as a radar jammer in Vietnam, until replaced by the EA-6A Prowler. AND YES, I second a DRUT (EF-10B nickname--'turd' spelled backwards) video--hopefully it's in the pipeline.

@stickiedmin6508

Ай бұрын

​@@petesheppard1709 Was the EA-6A also referred to as 'Prowler,' rather than 'Intruder?' I thought it was only the purpose built, four seat version that got the different name?

@petesheppard1709

Ай бұрын

@@stickiedmin6508 Good question! Admittedly, my memory's a bit fuzzy, and the -A didn't stay in service too long.

@petesheppard1709

Ай бұрын

@@stickiedmin6508 I just checked Wiki, and in the EA-6B article, the A was mentioned as the 'Electric Intruder'

11:47 minor correction, the Canadian government didn’t approve the purchase until the production line was already shut down. All RCN Banshees were acquired secondhand from the U.S. Navy, and Canada wound up settling for only 39 aircraft rather than 60 due to delays in the F3H Demon program, which in turn delayed the retirement of the Banshee, resulting in retired aircraft being in worse condition than forecast.

Great presentation. One of the first naval all-weather fighters to enter service. I was lucky to see one at the USMC Flying Leathernecks museum when it was at Miramar. It is certainly a very impressive aircraft.

It's pretty wild seeing them doing circuits with the canopy open.

@maciek_k.cichon

Ай бұрын

There's a Bell P-59 Airacomet (prototype I think) with open 'nose gunner' position 😆

@jona.scholt4362

Ай бұрын

I thought the same thing when I saw those Banshee's attempting to land on those carriers and being called off. Then I had to remind myself these guys were probably WW2 vets or naval aviators that started on the same piston engine aircraft from the WW2 era. Just imagine a pilot trying to do that in an F-35C! I have a feeling the drag on the canopy wouldn't even allow it to open or would immediately push it back down, but it would be hilarious to see.

@RCAvhstape

Ай бұрын

In yhe days before zero zero ejection seats pilots needed all the help they could get if things went wrong on landing. If the plane crashes on deck and catches fire punching out was not an option, only way to live was to jump out and run for it.

@stickiedmin6508

Ай бұрын

​@@RCAvhstape Good point. If the plane should unfortunately end up in the water, escape would be much, much easier if the canopy was _already_ open.

@RCAvhstape

Ай бұрын

@@stickiedmin6508 yeah, definitely

Anyone else looking forward to when he gets to the early Grumman jet fighters like the Panther, Cougar and Tiger? It would be awesome to see that set of Grumman aircraft get a video like the recent Hawker video he did (I feel like Grumman's history is far to expansive to do all in one video). In any case, can't wait for those early Grumman jets!

@karlfranz3819

Ай бұрын

I'd love to see a video on the insanity of Italian starfighter upgrades.

@RCAvhstape

Ай бұрын

I'd like to see a video about the entire Grumman cat family, from the Wildcat to the Tomcat.

@AndrewGivens

Ай бұрын

I think we've had the Panther - I might be wrong, but I think we have. - *sharp intake of breath* - We... we haven't. Oh my gosh. Sorry! Yeah, I too want to see a video on the premier four-ship wing-to-wing formation Atomic Monster slayer from every B-movie up until 1969.

@jona.scholt4362

Ай бұрын

@@AndrewGivens I did a check of the titles of his videos before I posted to be sure and didn't see anything. Could've missed it though, but I'm pretty sure there hasn't been an episode on it.

@stickiedmin6508

Ай бұрын

I'd be really keen to see videos like this one, comparing and pointing out the development of, and differences between different versions of planes within a certain 'family' - the differently sized Banshees in this one, or between the Panther and Cougar. There's plenty of stuff available to _read_ about such things, but it's always much easier to visualise when there's a video like this one that _shows_ the difference.

Beautiful video clip of the Convair Tradewind flying boat refueling the two Banshees!

Could you do a video on the AVRO arrow or other Canadian military aircraft such as the CF 100 Canuck or cl 84

Another great mini documentary on the aircraft of naval aviation. Thank you,

This channel is shockingly good

The F-3H Demon was even better in terms of speed and cockpit visibility. But still can't go beyond Mach 1.1, so it was phased out of service once F-8U2 Crusader was available.

@neiloflongbeck5705

Ай бұрын

But that wasn't in service until 1956.

@petesheppard1709

Ай бұрын

Such a pretty aircraft. AIUI, it was badly let down by its engines.

@ReviveHF

Ай бұрын

@@neiloflongbeck5705 Also retired from service after 8 years.

@ReviveHF

Ай бұрын

@@petesheppard1709 And the Navy wanted a dedicated anti bomber Interceptor, so the Demon's design evolved into interceptor called F-4H1 Phantom(later redesignated F-4A).

@neiloflongbeck5705

Ай бұрын

@@ReviveHF lots of aircraft had short service lives back then

Thank you for the choice of thumbnail pic. 😊

Love your content, brother! Always excellent. It never ceases to amaze me that we're talking about a 40's design. The range, ceiling, speed had to be almost unbelievable in it's time. The shot of the Banshee formed up with the Corsair speaks volumes. Thank you so much!!

Loving this channel. And you know it's getting bigger since haters are starting to show up. Losers can't stand it when others win.

Been waiting for this one! Canada mentioned

@jona.scholt4362

Ай бұрын

@millsnerd Have you ever watched the KZread channel, Polyus? It's of similar quality and focuses entirely on Canadian Aerospace projects. I'm not Canadian myself (though as a Michigander I visited Windsor plenty of times when I turned 19!) but I still found the channel to be great.

@petesheppard1709

Ай бұрын

@@jona.scholt4362 +1 for Polyus!

@millsnerd

Ай бұрын

I'm a subscriber. Thanks for the recommendation, regardless :)@@jona.scholt4362

A very nice and well-informed coverage of a now, less well known, but highly significant step in the gradual adoption of jets to carriers. An area fraught with many significant challenges.

Standing ovation! I guess this opens the door to doing a study on the F3D?

Great way to end a Friday! Thanks for the upload mate.

@mey.tomhero4876

Ай бұрын

Lol for me it’s the start of a Friday

I'm hoping that you will do a deep dive on the F-8 crusader and the Super Crusader descendent aircraft. Thanks for your great research.

Awesome video man. I'm glad your doing videos on the early years of jet development. Other channels have but I like your style of it. Cheers

Makes a great slope soaring design too!

Keep em coming!

Thanks so much, have been an aircraft enthusiast since mid 1960s and didn't know much about the "Banjo". Great channel

I always look forward to your videos. Another good one here -- thanks!

I love your presentation of the subject. Keep the videos coming.

Great video. I like the comparison to the hornet vs superhornet. No one knows why the banshee was called the "banjo/big banjo"?

I'm finally here, watched every video and... what a channel 👏 keep this coming man, amazing material... thank you...

Great video and explanation, love your channel! So cool these were in service at the same time as Panthers too!

Excellent video as always! I would love to see some content on 3rd and early 4th gen aircraft as well!

Another grat video, thank you

Another great video, I cannot WAIT until you do the Douglas Skyray, my favorite USN fighter of the "nifty fifties" era!

Cool looking aircraft and McDonnell Douglas now Boeing, was known for beautiful aircraft!

At 6:05 is that one of the rare Convair R3Y Tradewind turboprop flying boats? They were used as large tankers before being withdrawn

Nose goes up - launch Banshee - nose goes down - launch tracker. The old RCN way of clearing a flight deck

A video comparing the Banshee to the Panther would be interesting. Both aircraft were similar in speed and range. The Panther saw a alot of service over Korea. But the Banshee? They were both in service around the same time, yes? So why didn't the F2H2 serve much , if at all over Korea? Were we afraid the enemy may aquire it's radar technology?

@notapound

Ай бұрын

The sense I get is that the Banshee was mainly used in the Atlantic and Mediterranean fleets because the Navy regarded it as the better fighter and the Soviets as the main enemy. The Panther was fine for Korea because the Navy did relatively little air superiority work. A comparison is a good idea though. Panther deep dive is coming in two weeks time!

@Getoffmycloud53

Ай бұрын

Easiest look-up wikipedia for F9F Panther and F2H Banshee At least for Korea the Banshee seems to have been regarded as too slow to go up against the MiG-15. The F9F Panther series seems to have been more effective/successful - culminating in the improved F-9 Cougar. Numbers don’t seem to support the assumption that the Banshee was superior to the Panther.

@SliceofLife7777

Ай бұрын

@@notapound Excellent. I am anticipating your Panther video. Thanks for this one on the F2H2.

Would you ever do a video on the B1? It’s got some interesting history.

@FirstDagger

Ай бұрын

The channel name should give you a clue as to when he will do a video on any bomber.

Does anyone besides me lose focus on the narration (and the basic facts about the jet) while watching B-roll of a two-wheel landing and ensuing deck emergency? 🤣🤣🤣

@notapound >>> Great video...👍

Business as usual: Well done, Sir ! Q: in the photo at 7:20 with the nuclear bomb, the wingtip tanks have two little dark "dots" on the nose which look like gun barrels. What are these ?

There were many training mishaps aboard the HMCS Bo aventure, and certainly aboard her predecessors HMS Puncher, HMS Nabob, HMCS Warrior, and HMCS Magnificent. A member of Bonaventure's deck crew, operating an aircraft tug, died shortly after he was shot through his back. One of the cannons of the squadron's Banshee a/c somehow was fired unintentionally. The shell was unarmed but at this power level, it makes no difference. This was far from the most awful training accident on Bonaventure. Steady boys, steady.

11:05 What a satisfying emergency landing!

Banjo is a great name

All of these first-generation jets look so incredibly slick without those dang wingtip tanks. I understand they were essentially required - and even conferred some aerodynamic stability, at least on some airframes - but they look so, so much better without them, IMO. One thing that always strikes me is how similar the Banshee looks to the Shooting Star, especially sans wingtip tanks Anyways, great video, as usual!

9:20 I think you meant to say "thirty six hundred pound thrust" there. A 36,000lb engine in this size and weight class would probably be difficult even today, with not much of a lifespan.

@petesheppard1709

Ай бұрын

I caught that, too. He got it right a few seconds later.

Can someone tell me what the pods on the ends of the wings are?

They knew all about swept wings improving performance. Why did they continue to do straight wings?

@minera7595

Ай бұрын

Swept wings are very difficult to operate from Carrier back then (namely Essex class), it is only with Korean War that Navy start to seriously consider bigger carrier and swept wing aircrafts

@chriswalton720

Ай бұрын

Early swept wing aircraft had tricky stall characteristics, and most swept wing designs (including modern ones) have high induced drag at high angles of attack. Early jets were typically underpowered and the engines spooled up slowly, so it was relatively easy to get behind the power curve, which is Very Very Bad on final approach to a small aircraft carrier. Better aerodynamics and more powerful and responsive engines solved these problems. Angled deck carriers helped too!

Anyone visiting Calgary, Alberta can see one at the Museum Of The Regiments.

🥰

It seems the closest one could get nowadays would be a radar-equipped and AMRAAM-armed S-3😂

@RCAvhstape

Ай бұрын

AV-8B Harriers are AMRAAM capable.

@daszieher

Ай бұрын

@@RCAvhstape do they have the loiter time to match?

Interesting. I would hazard a guess that the big banjo was the inspiration behind the F6D Missileer, which lead to the F-111B then finally the F-14.

@petesheppard1709

Ай бұрын

The F6D looks more like a bulked-up F3D Skyknight.

@Akm72

Ай бұрын

@@petesheppard1709 Could be.

Polyus did a great video - HMCS Bonaventure's Sidewinder-Armed Fighter Wing; The Story of the McDonnell F2H-3 Banshee: kzread.info/dash/bejne/kYyF3LB7f8uzk6w.html

Those missions over soviet territory need to be given a higher profile. So irresponsible, but they also showed that the USA were confident of their capacity.

This entire video sounds like how they designed the Phantom.... hmmm thats not good, lets introduce elevator anhedral.... ok another one, shit, we dont have enough dihedral for stability, we cant change the spars, crank up the wingtips and see what happens..... jesus christ now they want a gun, where are we gonna put that..... EDIT: The Brits what want engine?????

@RCAvhstape

Ай бұрын

Old school

why the hell did the air force not climb all over this beast? i don't get it...

@gort8203

Ай бұрын

Why would the Air Force want a slow straight-wing jet when the the faster straight-wing F-84 was already in service and F-86 was about to enter production. Answer is they would not. They also had the F-94 and F-89 Scorpion for night /all-weather.

This video is much better at 1.25x speed.

@melbournesbaddrivers4831

Ай бұрын

I default to 1.25x on all of his videos.

@cheekibreeki4638

5 күн бұрын

In a rush to finish?

Radar monitoring...the same if not worse than early WW2 versions! 🙄💩

@cjones070

Ай бұрын

Makes it easy to be sneaky.

@manuwilson4695

Ай бұрын

@@cjones070 ...prattle prattle prattle 😁

The end of the video is just prattle.

828th like!!! Pichai Sundararajan may delete my interaction with you through the comments section, thus "rigging" your pay out results as the algo would be a lie. Nuthin sus though, right?

They knew all about swept wings improving performance. Why did they continue to do straight wings?

@RCAvhstape

Ай бұрын

I think it had to do with the difficulty of landing jets on a carrier with primitive early jet engines. One reason why modern supercarriers were built, too.

@thomasstevenhebert

Ай бұрын

It was about landing on carriers they needed the lower stall speed that the straight wing provides.

They knew all about swept wings improving performance. Why did they continue to do straight wings?