Hi all, Just a quick correction. In the video I stated that the Sea Ranger is the largest flying boat of the war. As some have correctly pointed out this is not the case. Thank you to those that have corrected me. It should have been the largest twin engine flying boat of the war. I must have gotten mixed up when writing. anyhow, I have now removed this comment from video, so that the video can be error free. 👍✈
Thank you very much for doing a video on the Sea Ranger. I have been interested in this aircraft ever since I first came across it many years ago. Too bad it didn't make it into production but I wonder if with only two engines it would be able to fly with one engine out. Thanks again!👍👍👍
No problem, thank you for the idea. It is quite an unique and interesting aircraft. I do wonder too, most likely not. It is a very big aircraft with a lot of weight. 👍✈️
@@AntiqueAirshow I'm just awed that the US economy had the capability to even consider fallbacks for so many aircraft; there was also the B-32 backstopping the Superfortress.
It's a shame they didn't put them into production , I'm sure they would have been a great help covering the Atlantic gap ,just think how many ships might have been saved if a few of these had been available whilst the navy waited for Escort carriers, hey whats new , things are always clearer in hindsight . Thanks for another really interesting video about a unique plane . Catch You next episode . HEY Viewers don't Forget , Hit the LIKE Icon , it's FREE & YT uses the data to promote this channel .
By the time it was flying, they just weren't needed. The US already had an array of proven flying boats such as Catalinas, Mariners and Coronados and the Mars was in equal development to the Sea Ranger. It was much more effective to use Liberators and then Privateers. That airframe was already in production by the thousands. While US production capacity was amazing, it did have some limits. An entirely new, low production aircraft didn't make the cut. While a daytime patrol did somewhat inhibit U-boats, it was mostly airborne radar that disrupted the menace, day or night. No one piece of equipment can take credit, it was the coordination and tactics that took time to develop.
It would have been interesting to see how they went if put into service. Ultimately, I think the small production run would have limited its effectiveness. Thank you, see you next video 👍✈️
maybe an insurance policy, since the Mariner PBM-1s entered service with Patrol Squadron Fifty-Five (VP-55) of the United States Navy on 1 September 1940. ?
I mean, the turrets are evident by the overwhelmingly obvious picture evidence too. Also, there is no way it was the largest flying boat built during WWII, as the Spruce Goose was under construction (so it was being built in WWII, even if not completed) and *the Martin Mars* did have it's first production aircraft finished before the end of the war, and it was much bigger.
While I agree the Hughes H-1 Hercules was larger, it is questionable whether it would’ve been able to perform its role. On its test flight it barely climbed above sea level so it may not have been able to leave Ground Effect behind. Perhaps the worlds first Ekranoplan?
@@SportyMabamba that doesn't remove the Martin Mars from the equation, as I cited... and for the Goose: the best available evidence, including its accidental first flight, indicated that it would fly, if not at design altitude.
Yeah definitely. I think its safe to assume that defensive armament was more than 4 machine guns. That means the Boeing website is incorrect. If you also look closely at the pictures I reckon I can count at least five machine guns. That is true. Thanks for the pick up. 👍✈️
@@DataRew Thanks for the support appreciate it. Many more coming along. Also just a quick note. I was meant to say in the video that Lone Ranger was the biggest twin engine float plane. It wasn't the biggest float plane. I've fixed the video too 👍👍✈✈
At 2;41, you are incorrect. "land Based Aircraft, in Naval terms, were the Marines (some-of-the-time) and USAAC Army planes. What the Navy Needed/Wanted, THEN, was Carrier Aircraft, giving up upon 'long-range' Patrols by amphibious based planes like this; A Mistake in RECON by a Navy that was over-confident, IMHO. If you don't over-fly it, you don't Know who's There!
it wasn't just the U.S Navy that changed strategy but the entire military hence the change to land based aircraft. Perhaps the Navy wanted a carrier aircraft, but all my sources just described it as a change to land-based aircraft hence why I went with that description. Yeah that is very fair, recon proved to be very important
It is rather unknown. The trail seems to go cold once it is placed in storage and then retired from service in 1947. I never came across what occurred to it. Most likely scrapped although it would be cool to think that it could be sitting somewhere locked up.
3x, Powered Turrets with 2-of .50 cal guns each. The side blisters are Not 'turrets', but observation bubbles, yet, may include one of a .30 cal machine gun, or, perhaps, a .50-cal gun, on a hand-held swivel-mount. So, you have Nose, Mid-dorsal, and Tail Powered dual .50-cal Turrets, and two "other' hand-aimed, pintle-mounted machine guns, of either .30 or .50 calibers. No forward pointed 'strafe-guns' on this Boat, which, whilst hunting Subs (which in-the-day ,used Snorkels to See and Breathe, was an glaring Error on Boeing's part, given that was a Primary Mission of the Type!!
According to the pilot notes: "Gunnery equipment consists of five Erco power operated tur-rets; one in the nose, one in the tail, one in the top waist at station 596 and one in each side waist at station 666." It is odd that there wasn't any forward firing guns, definitely would have been important
The name is an nod to the 1969 movie the Battle of Britain. One of the callsigns in the movie was Tomato Eins (German for Tomato One). The movie has had a significant influence on my love for historic aviation, so it's just my way of acknowledging that. It is a little odd though to those that might not know. Thank you, appreciate the support. Plenty more on the way 👍✈️
@@AntiqueAirshow Thank you for the info. I have seen that movie several times. Your reply jogged a faint memory, and I think I remember the scene.(Although, at 81, I can't remember what I had for breakfast half the time.)
At 3:17, reconsider your wording. Really? Bigger than a Martin MARS? Or PB2Y-3 Coronado of 1940? Big for a Twin-Engine Flying Boat, Yes, perhaps 'biggest yet'. Research. It's a lost art, as you re-write history incorrectly, that you should adhere towards.
Yes you are correct it is not the biggest flying boat that is a mistake on my part. I was meant to say the biggest twin engine flying boat. Sorry I got confused when writing this, but thanks for the pick up. I have removed that comment from the video. I always try my hardest to ensure that I am presenting factual information and always utilize a wide range of sources
![Why The US Navy Built A Fighter Jet On Skis | Convair F2Y Sea Dart [Aircraft Overview #72]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DUpUpq9lhqY/mqdefault.jpg)
Hi all,
Just a quick correction. In the video I stated that the Sea Ranger is the largest flying boat of the war. As some have correctly pointed out this is not the case. Thank you to those that have corrected me. It should have been the largest twin engine flying boat of the war. I must have gotten mixed up when writing.
anyhow, I have now removed this comment from video, so that the video can be error free. 👍✈
Dang, never heard of this fine aircraft.
I hadn't either until someone told me about it 👍✈️
I think the sea Ranger would have had more uses than the PBY, which had a small interior.
Quite possibly. I guess its small production though would have limited its capabilities.
Thank you very much for doing a video on the Sea Ranger. I have been interested in this aircraft ever since I first came across it many years ago. Too bad it didn't make it into production but I wonder if with only two engines it would be able to fly with one engine out. Thanks again!👍👍👍
With all those turrets, probably not. Crew would have to be jettisoning everything they could. Hard to say without max weight and engine bhp stats.
No problem, thank you for the idea. It is quite an unique and interesting aircraft. I do wonder too, most likely not. It is a very big aircraft with a lot of weight. 👍✈️
I agree. The pilots notes might shed some more light. I have looked at them, but there is a lot of info in there.
Thanks for an informative video. Had the Martin PBM Mariner not worked out, the PBB might have seen production.
Yeah quite possibly. I think somehow the priority of the B-29 would have always made it hard for the Sea Ranger to enter production 👍✈️
@@AntiqueAirshow I'm just awed that the US economy had the capability to even consider fallbacks for so many aircraft; there was also the B-32 backstopping the Superfortress.
@@petesheppard1709 Yeah I agree is quite impressive. The US war machine was massive. Also their construction numbers is very impressive.
@@AntiqueAirshow And it was essentially built from zero in just a few years....
It's a shame they didn't put them into production , I'm sure they would have been a great help covering the Atlantic gap ,just think how many ships might have been saved if a few of these had been available whilst the navy waited for Escort carriers, hey whats new , things are always clearer in hindsight . Thanks for another really interesting video about a unique plane . Catch You next episode . HEY Viewers don't Forget , Hit the LIKE Icon , it's FREE & YT uses the data to promote this channel .
By the time it was flying, they just weren't needed. The US already had an array of proven flying boats such as Catalinas, Mariners and Coronados and the Mars was in equal development to the Sea Ranger. It was much more effective to use Liberators and then Privateers. That airframe was already in production by the thousands. While US production capacity was amazing, it did have some limits. An entirely new, low production aircraft didn't make the cut. While a daytime patrol did somewhat inhibit U-boats, it was mostly airborne radar that disrupted the menace, day or night. No one piece of equipment can take credit, it was the coordination and tactics that took time to develop.
It would have been interesting to see how they went if put into service. Ultimately, I think the small production run would have limited its effectiveness.
Thank you, see you next video 👍✈️
Aren't these old flying boats gorgeous .
They sure are 👍✈
maybe an insurance policy, since the Mariner PBM-1s entered service with Patrol Squadron Fifty-Five (VP-55) of the United States Navy on 1 September 1940. ?
Possibly. I think by the sounds of it the navy wanted another big flying boat
I mean, the turrets are evident by the overwhelmingly obvious picture evidence too.
Also, there is no way it was the largest flying boat built during WWII, as the Spruce Goose was under construction (so it was being built in WWII, even if not completed) and *the Martin Mars* did have it's first production aircraft finished before the end of the war, and it was much bigger.
While I agree the Hughes H-1 Hercules was larger, it is questionable whether it would’ve been able to perform its role. On its test flight it barely climbed above sea level so it may not have been able to leave Ground Effect behind.
Perhaps the worlds first Ekranoplan?
@@SportyMabamba that doesn't remove the Martin Mars from the equation, as I cited... and for the Goose: the best available evidence, including its accidental first flight, indicated that it would fly, if not at design altitude.
Yeah definitely. I think its safe to assume that defensive armament was more than 4 machine guns. That means the Boeing website is incorrect. If you also look closely at the pictures I reckon I can count at least five machine guns.
That is true. Thanks for the pick up. 👍✈️
@@AntiqueAirshow Thank you for making your videos, I love them!
@@DataRew Thanks for the support appreciate it. Many more coming along.
Also just a quick note. I was meant to say in the video that Lone Ranger was the biggest twin engine float plane. It wasn't the biggest float plane. I've fixed the video too 👍👍✈✈
I want one, an RV for the air and water
I would also like one. They look a very cool and interesting aircraft
Good vid thanks.
Thank you 👍✈️
At 2;41, you are incorrect. "land Based Aircraft, in Naval terms, were the Marines (some-of-the-time) and USAAC Army planes. What the Navy Needed/Wanted, THEN, was Carrier Aircraft, giving up upon 'long-range' Patrols by amphibious based planes like this; A Mistake in RECON by a Navy that was over-confident, IMHO. If you don't over-fly it, you don't Know who's There!
it wasn't just the U.S Navy that changed strategy but the entire military hence the change to land based aircraft. Perhaps the Navy wanted a carrier aircraft, but all my sources just described it as a change to land-based aircraft hence why I went with that description.
Yeah that is very fair, recon proved to be very important
Thank you great video
Thanks 👍✈️
@AntiqueAirshow >>> Great video...👍
Thank you 👍✈️
@@AntiqueAirshow>>> You're Welcome.
What happened to the one example? did I miss that?
It is rather unknown. The trail seems to go cold once it is placed in storage and then retired from service in 1947. I never came across what occurred to it. Most likely scrapped although it would be cool to think that it could be sitting somewhere locked up.
Good Video/Info.
Thank you 👍✈️
3x, Powered Turrets with 2-of .50 cal guns each. The side blisters are Not 'turrets', but observation bubbles, yet, may include one of a .30 cal machine gun, or, perhaps, a .50-cal gun, on a hand-held swivel-mount. So, you have Nose, Mid-dorsal, and Tail Powered dual .50-cal Turrets, and two "other' hand-aimed, pintle-mounted machine guns, of either .30 or .50 calibers. No
forward pointed 'strafe-guns' on this Boat, which, whilst hunting Subs (which in-the-day ,used Snorkels to See and Breathe, was an glaring Error on Boeing's part, given that was a Primary Mission of the Type!!
According to the pilot notes:
"Gunnery equipment consists of five Erco power operated tur-rets; one in the nose, one in the tail, one in the top waist at station 596 and one in each side waist at station 666."
It is odd that there wasn't any forward firing guns, definitely would have been important
I have been a suscriber for some time, but i don't understand the name ( tomato eins). I enjoy your chanell greatly. Keep up the great work.
The name is an nod to the 1969 movie the Battle of Britain. One of the callsigns in the movie was Tomato Eins (German for Tomato One). The movie has had a significant influence on my love for historic aviation, so it's just my way of acknowledging that. It is a little odd though to those that might not know. Thank you, appreciate the support. Plenty more on the way 👍✈️
@@AntiqueAirshow Thank you for the info. I have seen that movie several times. Your reply jogged a faint memory, and I think I remember the scene.(Although, at 81, I can't remember what I had for breakfast half the time.)
At 3:17, reconsider your wording. Really? Bigger than a Martin MARS? Or PB2Y-3 Coronado of 1940? Big for a Twin-Engine Flying Boat, Yes, perhaps 'biggest yet'. Research. It's a lost art, as you re-write history incorrectly, that you should adhere towards.
Yes you are correct it is not the biggest flying boat that is a mistake on my part. I was meant to say the biggest twin engine flying boat. Sorry I got confused when writing this, but thanks for the pick up. I have removed that comment from the video. I always try my hardest to ensure that I am presenting factual information and always utilize a wide range of sources