Not A Pound For Air To Ground
Not A Pound For Air To Ground
As a kid I desperately wanted to be a fighter pilot. Poor eyesight, risible spatial awareness and an inability to understand even basic instructions knocked that idea on the head. But even as my career went down a different path, I retained an analyst's interest in aviation. In particular I like to try and understand the military-industrial systems in which aircraft were developed and the doctrines and concepts that governed their employment.
This channel is a way of getting ideas and research from my head into some kind of organised form. I really hope you enjoy watching them as much as I enjoy making them. But please remember that this is my passion and my hobby. I am not a professional documentary maker and I am at best an amateur historian. Please forgive the inevitable mistakes!
Пікірлер
Can you really call wanting twin jet engines in the wings of a fighter "conservative" at that time? What tradition are they basing it on, that Navy fighters have always been twin engine aircraft? It's their own take on a novel problem, they had just finished deciding that the single engine piston fighter was the only good way to make a true fighter, now Grumman is innovating g saying "but it doesn't _have_ to have a single engine, see?" Then a few years later everyone calls Boeing innovative for coming up with he idea of hanging jets under the wing of bomber and transport aircraft. Seem a little inconsistent. The only conservatism is that the two of the earliest jet fighters also used wing mounted engines, with good reason.
I assembled the Revel model when a young punk. I thought it was by far the best-looking jet out there and wondered why they weren't flying around in the early '60's. Thanks for explaining. Great video.
As with certain Oldsmobiles, these were called "Buttless Cutless" or the "Gutless Cutless". In reality, I guess that buth appelations are accurate.
Out of curiosity I got the Measuring tape out for a laugh , an 11ft ladder an going up it on a rolling Carrier , eh No..Great vid on an Oddball but interesting Aircraft.
Excellent story. I loved the Cutlass as a kid and built a model of it in the 1950s The restoration center of the Museum of Flight in Seattle located at PAE was in the process of restoring a Cutlass but fittingly they gave up on the project and sold it.
Is there another aircraft entering service with so many flaws?
Your comment on the F-35 made me laugh. Just feeding the algorithm.
Looking great, but in fact a stinker.
My god. This plane was a menace...to thier own pilots.
This has been the most comprehensive vid about the Cutlass I've seen. Thanks.
It's not necessary for s strategic bomber to return.. which was part of the problem
Excellent video
May be my favorite jet age plane 😎
It is almost like this current war has gotten tons of NGOs to fund small content creators to rewrite history so that all mistakes and bad choices of our past are rewritten. Almost like lazerpiging history. Btw lazerpig has been funded by UK and Ukrainian sources...
One of my favourites.....no crappy video game required ✌️
Quickfired 4 sidewinder... yes this is how to do it...
Superb. Thank you.
Did anyone spot the whole canopy flying off in the video of a cutlass crash landing on the carrier?😂 Forget the engines, the whole construction looked dodgy
The plane looked awesome, but looks can be deceiving
of the various aircraft history channels i follow, this is my absolute favorite. just something about the comprehensive yet riveting storytelling; i feel like i'm getting a story not limited by one perspective while also being put right there in the action.
Maybe God was involved
Islamic nations traditionally only do well with terrorism, conventional warfare obviously isnt in their wheelhouse. Had Russian pilots been involved the outcome would have been totally different.
Tricycle landing gear with the visibility and convenience of a tail dragger
You are really good at this.
Westinghouse was selected to produce jet engines based on their experience in power generators. Unfortunately those skill were not translated to the J34 engines
Steam punk fuel system? You mean mechanically actuated.
Muslims just dont make good fighter pilots it would seem, its harder than flying airliners into buildings.
I want this POS to be in War Thunder
Holy cow! “. . . In 1954 alone the Navy and the Marine Corps lost 776 aircraft and 536 aircrew in accidents.” I would suspect that that is more than the Navy and Marine Corps lost in combat in the entire Korean War. Thanks for a very informative video.
How come the French didn't have a huge war debt like the British had? And how come the US was subsidising their aerospace industry too?
For some strange reason I keep watching these videos, there very interesting and presented well but its the information that makes them in my opinion.
As someone who's deeply fond of the aesthetic of the more wild and out-there late-WW2-to-early-Cold War designs, I can't wait to see this disaster of a plane added to War Thunder where its fatal flaws can be conveniently ignored. In the digital realm where your engine is always 100% reliable, this gorgeous disaster will probably live a very happy life.
Floyd's Obit scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1997/vp970817/08170017.htm In speaking with a Cutlass pilot he thought that it's arrival prior to canted deck carriers was big part of its early accident problems. Watching those landings on the Hancock you see how the pilots slam the plane down on the nose strut to try get the plane to stop fore before hitting the barrier and all the parked planes.
Haha, love the blue angels joke.
It should have been called the F7 Murphy. If it could go wrong...
40:46 Is the F11F Tiger an exception to this?
45:20 Guess that answers that
Axiom: “If it looks good, it flies good.” This thing……… ……looks like hammered dog dirt.
It was garbage and won't be missed. The fact that they kept pumping money in this turkey reeks of politics. The captain dumped the lot of them ashore for safety? Unheard of.
great video, i love your longer form content into these obscure/unsuccsessful types. i'll often watch your vids whilst I'm building scale model aircraft, at the moment i have the he219 UHU on the bench in 1/48.
Also kind of amused to hear you use the NATO code name so openly. Most sources these days will just politically leave that it entirely and just call it the MiG-15. Which is the correct name anyway. Maybe "fagot" doesn't have the same connotations in the UK? Or maybe you just don't care? It's kind of refreshing anyway.
Request for the f84 series, cheers
Not sure if that's some other definition of "fagot" im not familiar with, but a fagot is a bundle of sticks for use as fuel. I think the implication was that you would be seeing this aircraft in flames. I have to say i am very impressed by your work. I typically don't bother watching videos about aircraft because most of them are mediocre at best, i have actually been scrolling past your videos for a week or so, like "oh great another guy rehashing everything about a plane that he got from ten minutes on Google and calling it a 'documentary'", but then i saw your video on the AA-1 Alkali, and decided i would check it out because it was such an unusual and interesting subject. I spent the next four hours driving and listening to your videos, and i actually kept going back to relisten to parts every time i got distracted by traffic and missed something, because i didn't want to miss anything. I _never_ do that. i have no problem saying these are top quality documentaries and i am very impressed. I am really hoping you have a huge backlist of videos that i can watch. The more in depth discussion is fascinating.
I did engineering work at LTV in the early 80's, working with older engineers who had worked on the Cutlass back in the day. I heard lots of crazy stories about the F7U. It was built like a tank, but flew like one as well.
This looks like an astronaut-enthused child designed this. Test pilots in those days must have used wheelbarrows to carry their balls around.
F7U's major problems stem from an inferior jet engine, futuristic design that to advance to 1950s tech support, and lack of automatic flight controls similar to today's Fly-By-Wire systems
Very informative episode on the “gutless cutlass”. I was actually hoping to hear that term used in the video, since that’s what its moniker had become throughout its period of use. The story of the blue angels pilot that flew it between the trees and actually landed aircraft was pretty amazing. I would’ve loved to seen photos after that if all the wings are ripped off, and he still managed to land the aircraft.
My favorite crap jet of all time. So cool looking with such potential, scuttled by horrific engines.
Delivering a nuke at low level, sounds insane just saying it. When did the Sabers switch to 20mm guns? The dog fighting during the Korea war was some of the best flying ever done in my book.
Anyone who says the MiG-15 is just a tractor has no idea. So they didn't get it perfect, they got it first. No one knew exactly what they were doing at that time. And the science that went into designing it was just as advanced as any at the time. The way it looks also has nothing to do with how technical the construction is. I think you will find that it isn't just made it angle iron with sheet metal riveted all over it. It was made the way any aircraft was made, and significantly more advanced than the WW2 year era aircraft of a few years before. The F-86 was no more "advanced" than having better equipment fitted into it.
Too heavy and slow? Back then you made the aircraft to the specifications requested weight etc. . . It was a bid the entries tested, and then the winner decided. It's been simplified since then only the politically correct are even considered. Easy with no competition to keep the moolah in house.