F.A.Q Section - Ask your questions here :) Q: Do you take aircraft requests? A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:) Q: How do you decide what aircraft gets covered next? A: Supporters over on Patreon now get to vote on upcoming topics such as overviews, special videos, and deep dives. Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others? A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both.
Propellers. Fascinates as to why 2 or 3 or 4 blade propellers etc on different aircraft. Why the shrouds or the just the middle bit etc. I guess I'll have to go find out at some point.
I like to think that planes like these were designed by a mad scientist, focusing solely on the pilot's performance being min-maxed. Think about it - you're cold, uncomfortable and sent straight into danger. But at least you're not the rear gunner - colder, pretty much useless and usually unconscious in a dogfight. Great morale boost right there.
If you really want to pity a rear gunner, go check the famous IL-2 Sturmovik. While the pilot had all the armour he could want, the gunner's armour was barelly proof against rifles, and didn't even cover the legs...
Single engine Twin seat fighters were some of the most successful combat aircraft of ww1 and proved highly competitive and hard to kill. Types like the Bristol fighter or the german halberstadt CL.II/CL.IV and hanover CL.III had no trouble mixing it up with the best available single seat fighters of there day. The concept was proven and, at the time, there was no apparent reason why it should not continue to work.
It's quite amazing to see these innovative aircraft produced during the 1930s, even if some of them were virtually obsolete as soon as they entered service.
@BHuang92 In this case, it seems as though with a bit more speed and armament, it might have had a useful role as a naval fighter or reconnaissance plane, but it wasn't meant to be.
With it taking about 3 years going from on paper, to prototype, to production. As soon as an aircraft was entering production/service, there was already a prototype that flew at least 10% faster at 10% higher. If you look at the RAF fighters, 1929 it was the Bristol Bulldog in service, a (just) sub 200mph aircraft that introduced pilot oxygen and radios as standard. In 1939 the Spitfire and Hurricane was the new in service fighters, capable of in excess of 300mph and something like 125% of the Bulldogs effective service ceiling. The only time I can think of such a rapid technology advance in such a time period is the CPU advances of the 90's. The PC you bought in 1990 with a 486 dx66 mhz CPU would be near useless in 2000 with CPU speeds in excess 800mhz and all the gubbins.
@@Glazed_Donut1776 once engines got powerful enough to overcome the size and weight disadvantages that the second crewman comes with. Before then... well ask the fulmar pilots if they'd be confident going up against a group of CR-42s
In the 1920s and early 1930s, the concept of single engined twin seat fighters seemed to make a whole lot of sense. While people today only remember the utter failure, the defiant was, they forget that some of the most successful fighters of WW1 were, in fact, twin seaters like the Bristol fighter (witch remained in service till the early 30s), the sopwith 1 1/2 strutter (first allied fighter with a synchronized gun), the halberstadt CL.II and CL.IV (famous as ground attackers but also able to hold there own in dogfighting against even the best single seaters) the Hanover CL.III (witch gained fame by being able to outfight the camle without much trouble) and a few other types. They were the multi role aircraft of their day comparable to today's F-16 or F/A-18..... When one takes a closer look at it, the late 30s ans ww2 were the only time in which twinseat fighters did not really work as one had the mentioned above before that and planes like the F-94,F-4, tornado F-14 after ww2
The Defiant was trying to implement Schrage Musik, if badly. Ironically, that RAF had actually used it in WW1 but somehow forgot in the 1920s. In the end shoving a load of cannon in a Beaufort and squeezing radar in (more or less) did the job in 1940/1. Not that the Defiant was suitable for daylight use as designed. They did modify one as an 8-gun fighter and it had about the same performance as a Hurricane.
Trying to understand why an effective cockpit heating system wasn't possible. A large heat generating engine with plenty hot water sat just in front of the pilot! Usually, the problem is getting rid of excess heat. Given that aircraft manufacturers were trying to sell aircraft for opeartion at high altitude, I wonder why a little more effort was not given to making them more comfortable. How were crews expected to perform well if they were half frozen to death?
12:00 OMG I had that US Fighters book as a kid, I miss it so much wish I still had it! My mother threw it out long ago, I bought it from the "Military Book Club" I had joined. Just seeing that cover again brings back the memories!😁
Twin-seat fighters made sense during WWI, the Bristol F2B and DFW C.V being great examples, no wonder people continued to try and make the concept work long after technology and performance made it unworkable.
I have the book by Lloyd Jones, which is where I first learned about this one. It's interesting they went all-in on metal skinning it, when many combat planes still had fabric surfaces covering the control surfaces well into WW2.
Thanks for the video on this! Aviation in the interwar years is overlooked, and it's not as easy to find info on these aircraft. It's really compelling to see how fast designs improved, along with the oddities and failed experiments that come with innovation. The P-30 is quite pretty, and I especially like its weird engine mounting. The bright colors on the aircraft speak to a more romantic mindset on flying that wouldn't last into WW2, but you can see the classic warbirds taking shape as the decade progressed.
3:06 Oh wow, the P-6E Hawk has to be one of the best looking craft ever. Rex, PLEASE give us a deep dive on it!! Including the one donated to the AF Museum by Edward Perkins….
The single engine two seat is a pretty narrow niche. From my understanding of British Fleet Air Arm designs, it offers scope to dual-role as a reconnaissance aircraft. See the Fairey Fulmar and Firefly. By all accounts, decent range radios were bulky and required sufficient attention to justify the second crewman. This particular limitation declined during the 1940s. But there's something to be said for a second pair of Mk 1 human eyeballs to identify things.
I always thought it was better to have things along the lines of the bf110/p38 line of planes than dedicated fighters..... Always useful to have the stuff for ground attacks. And I always liked the fulmar as well even tho it's not as well liked as some planes.
@@dillonpierce7869 Yes, I agree that a second engine offers a lot of benefits - especially in 1939-40 with several interesting twin engine fighters. I was raised at a time when popular history dumped on the Bf110. Now I view it as a capable design, at least capable when deployed in its intended role. We rarely hear those criticisms of designs like the Fokker G1 or the Westland Whirlwind. The Whirlwind, is interesting since it's a single seater, as is the later P38. But 2 engines imply a significant step up in weight, and that wasn't accepted for carrier service during WW2. A pity, I'd love to have seen the fleet air arm operating Beaufighters or Mosquitos in a scout / antisub role.
@@dillonpierce7869 The Battle of Britain showed that at the time (early 1940s) MeBf110s struggled to mix it with Hurricanes & were deathtrap around Spitires .......... As their design concept was 'Long Range Escort Fighter' this casts doubt on the view that's a better option than a single engine single seat fighter? As for Steve ..... Err Coastal Command DID use Beaufighters in anti -shipping inc anti-Uboat roles (Although IRC they maybe used more Beauforts for their load carrying?)
@@Farweasel meaning in the 2 seat fighters in mine.... About only the p38 and mosquito come to mind as effective twin engine fighters at that time with the maneuverability to mix with the single engine stuff. And me myself I'd prefer a gunner or some form of guns watching behind me cuz I target fixate in games as it is don't wanna know how bad I'd be for real.
@@FarweaselBeaufighters were torpedo bombers with big teeth rather than two seat fighters. They were used as radar equipped night fighters however later on - night fighters have fewer issues with manoeuvrability however. Beaufighters didn’t normally have rear guns…
Is there any particular reason why the army didn't try making it into a dive bomber for close air support roles? From what I'm reading it's faster than a dauntless with an engine around 400hp less powerful
Rex mentioned that - The aircraft was too powerful and exceeded the structural limitations as designed. The aircraft broke up in testing which makes it a very poor candidate for a high-stress dive bomber. Then, the company went bankrupt. It never had a chance to get a redesign for that capability.
@@Glazed_Donut1776 probably could've done it under that CAC group that picked it up but fair points, having less than half the range was probably a pretty big negative also.
The higher top speed probably came from the higher critical altitude of the engine due to the turbosupercharger. What you probably should compare, to adequately compare potential as a bomber, are the climb rates of aircraft.
Superb Video, thank you. As always very interesting. I'm working on a project to build a large scale model of a P-30, but completely stumped for plans and drawings. Think going to have to use a model kit and scale up from that.
I commented elsewhere that the .30cal was intended for use against fighters and the .50cal against (somewhat) more sturdily constructed bombers. Fighters were rather flimsy until the early 1930s so rifle calibre bullets were sufficient. Eventually that didn't hold up any more, of course.
The 50 is relatively heavy, as is the ammunition so two were thought to compromise performance too much. Compared to twin Vickers firing at 600rpm, an AN/M2 30 firing at 1200rpm and an M1921 50 was heavy armament in 1934. But that was the point France started putting 20mm cannon in, the RAF started looking at cannon in 1935, ditto Germany. So by 1939 it looked weak. But the USA was moving to two 30s, two 50s or about the same as a Spitfire.
@@jamesengland7461 I'm not sure. There may be a treaty limit, but I think we're looking at natural increases. There were a number of 10/11mm rifles at the end of the black powder era. The arrival of smokeless powder and spitzer bullets saw a drop into the .3" region (7.5 - 8mm). Some rifle militaries stepped down to 6.5mm, and light machineguns followed. But we're in the business of proper chunky aircraft size ammo. All air forces would like an option of a heavier machinegun, so the gunsmiths go to work. Who in their right mind is going to step up a tenth of an inch from .3" to .4". You might as well take a bigger jump into the 12-15mm range.
Oh deary me. Here we go again. Didn't know this one. And I think it looks good. Shame it was not as good as it looked. Just look at it, It looks quick even parked on the ground. Thanks Chris.
@@garryferrington811 Too many people ignore this fact. The second world war began with a range of light aircraft designs. Air forces had constructed a doctrine around these, but some of those doctrines were bad. The Defiant found a niche as a reasonable night fighter until faster aircraft with forward facing cannon could carry radar and fill that role. It's turret mounted guns could do what the later Schrage Musik installations did, and also attack at other angles. The Bf110 was also a useful night fighter. The Defiants and Bf110s which tried dogfighting against Bf109s and Spitfires didn't do so well.
I've always wondered ... if they would have turned the rear gunner's cockpit into an instructor's seat, and mounted an Allison engine onto the nose ... it might have made an even better advanced trainer than the AT-6.
Actually, I was going to say...."That if you need a rear gunner, then you must be going too slow." But in saying that, it still looks like a capable aircraft.
It's likely the two-seater concept was partially kept on to provide the pilot with someone to watch his six o'clock. Unfortunately, having the added weight and drag of the rear gunner probably slowed this fast plane down to a speed where it might be overtaken and shot at.
Are there a lot of backwards photos, or did some of these engines really turn counterclockwise from the cockpit vantage point? The pitch of the blades provides the impression. There are never any words or numbers in the photos by which to make the judgement.
The Curtiss Conqueror had it's own issues. Most of which stemmed from its USAAC imposed operating temperature of 300°F. That said l have often wondered if it would have nade an excellent tank engine later on. After all the Gord GA was derived from the Ford V-1650 aircraft engine design.
Consolidates was Nip' n on the wrong...a branch, the USN luvs 2-seater fighters, still. See some compare to Bitt 30s fighters, Boult-on a turret, or Fairey a long battler. To me, looks like they ripped the wings off and put it on Fairchilds PT-19. Then US had that debate about no-inline then twin-engine dive bomber. Mind wanders if Vultee with V-11/YA-19 went for that, while other side of ex-Detroiters went in Pursuit direction. Anything just to cut into Curtiss-Wright stronghold, cause its seems an improve A-12 Shrike. Why didn't they send it down to the 3rd Attack Group for testing? Was it structurally solid enough to pull out of a drive run?
I have to laugh, The Curtiss P-6, I've seen scale models of it since the 1960's. This is the first time I've heard it mentioned in actual history . I guess it looked nice and not much else. 😁
Why did some planes of this time have a mismatched forward armament? this one has a 50 caliber and a 30 caliber forward machine gun. what was the logic behind that? If a fighter would have two forward weapons I would expect them to both be the same caliber/size. What am I missing here 🙂?
I’d suspect weight might be a factor, then cost but from my infantry experience we mixed .50cal HMG with 7.62mm on tripods on gun lines. .50 cal was great for point destruction whilst 7.62mm was best for rate of fire for suppression. The Soviets carried single 12.7mm with 20mm in early WW2 fighters and would fire the HMG until on target to then hit with 20mm as it carried so few rounds. Maybe they had same idea with mixed calibres in the US?
.30cal for fighter-to-fighter combat and .50cal for fighter-to-bomber work. Fighter aircraft were rather flimsy affairs until the early 1930s and rifle calibre rounds were usually enough to shoot one down. Armour was virtually non-existent, as were self-sealing fuel tanks. Bombers were a bit more sturdily built, hence the .50cal to deal with those. Of course development in aviation technology eventually made the .30cal (and comparable calibres) obsolete and for American aircraft multiple .50cal machine guns became the norm (with a 20mm or 37mm cannon thrown in here and there, i.e. in the P-38 and the P-39.).
@@alias_aka_alias From Wikipedia: '(...) Different wings, featuring a variety of weapons, were fitted to most marks [of Spitfire]; the A wing used eight .303 in (7.7 mm) machine guns, the B wing had four .303 in (7.7 mm) machine guns and two 20 mm (.79 in) Hispano cannons, and the C, or universal, wing could mount either four 20 mm (.79 in) cannons or two 20 mm (.79 in) and four .303 in (7.7 mm) machine guns. As the war progressed, the C wing became more common. Another armament variation was the E wing which housed two 20 mm (.79 in) cannons and two .50 in (12.7 mm) Browning machine guns.'
Heres a video idea, you could trying ranking the most "beautiful" aircraft ever made, starting with the British, like you did last time (i'm not sure you did start with the british last time acutally)
@@jamesberry3230 a supercharger is mechanically driven and a turbocharger is exhaust driven and anyway do U know any aircraft engine that's twincharged
@@Miko-yi5zwTurbosupercharger is just an old term for what we now cal turbos. With turbochargers being another term for the same thing. It's like the difference between leading edge flaps and leading edge slats. As far as I'm aware it's just a term for high lift devices on the leading edge of the wing. With all manufacturers having a preference for one of these terms and design habits, the public starts seeing patterns where there are none.
Good video. It actually might have made a reasonable night fighter, with the rear gunner as radar operator. Otherwise, two-seater single engine aircraft were not up to WW2 use as fighters.
I have this cockpit layout I thought up years ago in 1st-year college (I was a dumbass), where the rear gunner also serves as a co-pilot taking over the main guy to let him rest while in flight or in a fight (like a buddy system) But since the other's a rear gunner it also put a lot of strain on him doing two jobs so I realize that idea of mine is somewhat useless. But hey, who knows? Maybe it'll work in fiction works in novels or Anime
Actually there is more merit to your idea than you think. The co-pilot wouldnt really need to man the rear MG during long transit anyway, so he could take over and let the pilot rest for a while, and in combat the pilot would be piloting anyway, so long as bullets miss him, and the rear gunner can do his job. At no point is there any real double duty.
If Britain was so far ahead in producing radar, why were they one of the last to use navy planes with a dedicated navigator? Was it just such a secret that the navy didn't know it was coming down the line?
Well I guess my question of why WW2 fighters were (almost?) always single and not double seaters. A rear firing machine gun seems life saving and invaluable to me but I guess you may as well have 150 pounds of rocks behind you if he blacks out.
Back then, it was all about airframe, performance and carrying capacity. Now a 50 year old design (probably not an airframe with 50 years continuous service), might be almost as capable as a new design. Disclaimer: That 50 year old airframe needs a seriously updated electronics package to be competitive.
It is quite surprising that America didn't have the funds to finance a prototype, since America produces one million dollars of dept every 32 seconds today.
What a baffling period for aircraft. From open cockpits and fixed landing gear to retractable gear and enclosed cockpits. No wonder nobody wanted to buy planes because it would be junk or obsolete way too fast.
Yeah ... if you look at all those aircraft designation numbers - think about how many numbers you don't know anything about the aircraft that got them. .
As a fighter pretty much useless. As an observation/attack aircraft maybe not too bad. Two seat piston engined fighters only made sense once airborne radar became practical. And then really only as night fighters. Plus all of these early to mid 30s aircraft are ridiculously underarmed imo. One thing the US had Beowning develop the M2 .50 for was to be used in fighter aircraft. Even by 1945 US fighters were undergunnded to a large degree. Thanks to the Bureau of Ordinance (or is it the Board?) production of the 20mm Hispano was a complete cluster #/×@. Seems the BoO screwed up converting the metric dimensions and most importantly the tolerances to inches (1). As l understand it th he British looked at some of the early examples and were very impressed with the quality of the manufacturing. It's just that the guns wouldn't work. 1) Converting dimensions and tolerances is not rocket science. I used to have to do it on a regular basis inspecting and doing drawings of parts. Another factor might have been in the steels or other materials used. Aside from the SAE carbon steel numbering system there were not a lot of numbering systems in use that gave a hint as to the alloying elements. Lots of proprietary formulas.
![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)
![Why The US Navy Built A Fighter Jet On Skis | Convair F2Y Sea Dart [Aircraft Overview #72]](/img/tr.png)
![The Failed Airliner That Became A Bomber - Vultee V-11 [Aircraft Overview #80]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bq-L9D9Cb8w/mqdefault.jpg)
F.A.Q Section - Ask your questions here :)
Q: Do you take aircraft requests?
A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:)
Q: How do you decide what aircraft gets covered next?
A: Supporters over on Patreon now get to vote on upcoming topics such as overviews, special videos, and deep dives.
Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others?
A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both.
Propellers. Fascinates as to why 2 or 3 or 4 blade propellers etc on different aircraft. Why the shrouds or the just the middle bit etc. I guess I'll have to go find out at some point.
Is the Sunderland on said list of aircraft requests?
Piaggio P.108, FFVS J 22, SAAB 21, and CAC Boomerang.
@@JosephKanopartly to do with engine power v’s the length of blade. There is a point at which an extra blade wins over two longer/fatter ones. Etc 🇬🇧🌈
B-2 spirit, Supermarine spiteful, C-47 Skytrain (:
I like to think that planes like these were designed by a mad scientist, focusing solely on the pilot's performance being min-maxed. Think about it - you're cold, uncomfortable and sent straight into danger. But at least you're not the rear gunner - colder, pretty much useless and usually unconscious in a dogfight. Great morale boost right there.
If you really want to pity a rear gunner, go check the famous IL-2 Sturmovik. While the pilot had all the armour he could want, the gunner's armour was barelly proof against rifles, and didn't even cover the legs...
@@jlvfr The gunner in the Il-2 was basically an extra bit of rear armor for the pilot.
@@RedXlV :D :D
Single engine Twin seat fighters were some of the most successful combat aircraft of ww1 and proved highly competitive and hard to kill.
Types like the Bristol fighter or the german halberstadt CL.II/CL.IV and hanover CL.III had no trouble mixing it up with the best available single seat fighters of there day.
The concept was proven and, at the time, there was no apparent reason why it should not continue to work.
@@RedXlV and in the first, extemporised, had a seat less sturdy than the average deck chair whilst being totally open to the slipstream. In winter.
Good one! Love filling in those "missing" fighter designations from the inter war years.
It's quite amazing to see these innovative aircraft produced during the 1930s, even if some of them were virtually obsolete as soon as they entered service.
1930s was a weird time in aviation where there were some good ideas that ended up absolutely terrible in practice!
@BHuang92 In this case, it seems as though with a bit more speed and armament, it might have had a useful role as a naval fighter or reconnaissance plane, but it wasn't meant to be.
With it taking about 3 years going from on paper, to prototype, to production. As soon as an aircraft was entering production/service, there was already a prototype that flew at least 10% faster at 10% higher. If you look at the RAF fighters, 1929 it was the Bristol Bulldog in service, a (just) sub 200mph aircraft that introduced pilot oxygen and radios as standard. In 1939 the Spitfire and Hurricane was the new in service fighters, capable of in excess of 300mph and something like 125% of the Bulldogs effective service ceiling. The only time I can think of such a rapid technology advance in such a time period is the CPU advances of the 90's. The PC you bought in 1990 with a 486 dx66 mhz CPU would be near useless in 2000 with CPU speeds in excess 800mhz and all the gubbins.
" .. twin seat fighter ..." hmmmm, where have I heard that before ? .. needs a turret .. :D The American Defiant.
Or Fulmar, or perhaps Firefly, which at least had decent performance.
The F-14 Tomcat put that argument to rest. There is simply too much 'work' to do in the fight. One stick, but 4x Mk1 Eyeballs is a serious advantage.
@@Glazed_Donut1776 lol
It led a longer life as a Cox .049 Ukie. Also the Phatom F4 has two occupants.
@@Glazed_Donut1776 once engines got powerful enough to overcome the size and weight disadvantages that the second crewman comes with. Before then... well ask the fulmar pilots if they'd be confident going up against a group of CR-42s
In the 1920s and early 1930s, the concept of single engined twin seat fighters seemed to make a whole lot of sense. While people today only remember the utter failure, the defiant was, they forget that some of the most successful fighters of WW1 were, in fact, twin seaters like the Bristol fighter (witch remained in service till the early 30s), the sopwith 1 1/2 strutter (first allied fighter with a synchronized gun), the halberstadt CL.II and CL.IV (famous as ground attackers but also able to hold there own in dogfighting against even the best single seaters) the Hanover CL.III (witch gained fame by being able to outfight the camle without much trouble) and a few other types.
They were the multi role aircraft of their day comparable to today's F-16 or F/A-18.....
When one takes a closer look at it, the late 30s ans ww2 were the only time in which twinseat fighters did not really work as one had the mentioned above before that and planes like the F-94,F-4, tornado F-14 after ww2
The Defiant was trying to implement Schrage Musik, if badly. Ironically, that RAF had actually used it in WW1 but somehow forgot in the 1920s. In the end shoving a load of cannon in a Beaufort and squeezing radar in (more or less) did the job in 1940/1. Not that the Defiant was suitable for daylight use as designed. They did modify one as an 8-gun fighter and it had about the same performance as a Hurricane.
Never heard of it. Thanks for yet another great video!
Surprisingly good looking plane too
You know you made a promising plane when four prototypes get destroyed and the military is still interested.
Trying to understand why an effective cockpit heating system wasn't possible. A large heat generating engine with plenty hot water sat just in front of the pilot! Usually, the problem is getting rid of excess heat. Given that aircraft manufacturers were trying to sell aircraft for opeartion at high altitude, I wonder why a little more effort was not given to making them more comfortable.
How were crews expected to perform well if they were half frozen to death?
Some hump day Rex. Very good.
Thanks Rex, always wait for your posts, fantastic history, presentation and observations.. a great gift!
12:00 OMG I had that US Fighters book as a kid, I miss it so much wish I still had it! My mother threw it out long ago, I bought it from the "Military Book Club" I had joined. Just seeing that cover again brings back the memories!😁
Merry Christmas Rex!
Keep up the good work!😌
Thank you! Merry Christmas!
@RexsHangar you just keep doing good work lad. Fantastic stuff.
How about one on the Curtis A-18 Shrike? Your videos are always interesting and enjoyable. Thanks.
Twin-seat fighters made sense during WWI, the Bristol F2B and DFW C.V being great examples, no wonder people continued to try and make the concept work long after technology and performance made it unworkable.
I have the book by Lloyd Jones, which is where I first learned about this one. It's interesting they went all-in on metal skinning it, when many combat planes still had fabric surfaces covering the control surfaces well into WW2.
Thanks for the video on this! Aviation in the interwar years is overlooked, and it's not as easy to find info on these aircraft.
It's really compelling to see how fast designs improved, along with the oddities and failed experiments that come with innovation. The P-30 is quite pretty, and I especially like its weird engine mounting.
The bright colors on the aircraft speak to a more romantic mindset on flying that wouldn't last into WW2, but you can see the classic warbirds taking shape as the decade progressed.
Aeronave interessante, Grato pelo vídeo e pelas informações 🌟
That YP-24 has a lot of the Heinkel Blitz about it.
These vids are great - so in depth and just the right amount of humor. I've sent your channel to a lot of buds too
3:06 Oh wow, the P-6E Hawk has to be one of the best looking craft ever. Rex, PLEASE give us a deep dive on it!! Including the one donated to the AF Museum by Edward Perkins….
Thanks for featuring little known aircraft like this.
Pilot to rear gunner: "Hey! Quit falling asleep back there!" 🐿
Thank you. The book references at the end are a useful innovation
The single engine two seat is a pretty narrow niche.
From my understanding of British Fleet Air Arm designs, it offers scope to dual-role as a reconnaissance aircraft.
See the Fairey Fulmar and Firefly.
By all accounts, decent range radios were bulky and required sufficient attention to justify the second crewman.
This particular limitation declined during the 1940s.
But there's something to be said for a second pair of Mk 1 human eyeballs to identify things.
I always thought it was better to have things along the lines of the bf110/p38 line of planes than dedicated fighters..... Always useful to have the stuff for ground attacks. And I always liked the fulmar as well even tho it's not as well liked as some planes.
@@dillonpierce7869 Yes, I agree that a second engine offers a lot of benefits - especially in 1939-40 with several interesting twin engine fighters.
I was raised at a time when popular history dumped on the Bf110.
Now I view it as a capable design, at least capable when deployed in its intended role.
We rarely hear those criticisms of designs like the Fokker G1 or the Westland Whirlwind.
The Whirlwind, is interesting since it's a single seater, as is the later P38.
But 2 engines imply a significant step up in weight, and that wasn't accepted for carrier service during WW2.
A pity, I'd love to have seen the fleet air arm operating Beaufighters or Mosquitos in a scout / antisub role.
@@dillonpierce7869 The Battle of Britain showed that at the time (early 1940s) MeBf110s struggled to mix it with Hurricanes & were deathtrap around Spitires .......... As their design concept was 'Long Range Escort Fighter' this casts doubt on the view that's a better option than a single engine single seat fighter?
As for Steve ..... Err Coastal Command DID use Beaufighters in anti -shipping inc anti-Uboat roles
(Although IRC they maybe used more Beauforts for their load carrying?)
@@Farweasel meaning in the 2 seat fighters in mine.... About only the p38 and mosquito come to mind as effective twin engine fighters at that time with the maneuverability to mix with the single engine stuff. And me myself I'd prefer a gunner or some form of guns watching behind me cuz I target fixate in games as it is don't wanna know how bad I'd be for real.
@@FarweaselBeaufighters were torpedo bombers with big teeth rather than two seat fighters.
They were used as radar equipped night fighters however later on - night fighters have fewer issues with manoeuvrability however.
Beaufighters didn’t normally have rear guns…
Is there any particular reason why the army didn't try making it into a dive bomber for close air support roles? From what I'm reading it's faster than a dauntless with an engine around 400hp less powerful
Rex mentioned that - The aircraft was too powerful and exceeded the structural limitations as designed. The aircraft broke up in testing which makes it a very poor candidate for a high-stress dive bomber. Then, the company went bankrupt. It never had a chance to get a redesign for that capability.
@@Glazed_Donut1776 probably could've done it under that CAC group that picked it up but fair points, having less than half the range was probably a pretty big negative also.
@@firestorm165 I came away thinking the real star of this project was the powerful Curtiss engine 😉
The higher top speed probably came from the higher critical altitude of the engine due to the turbosupercharger.
What you probably should compare, to adequately compare potential as a bomber, are the climb rates of aircraft.
Great video, Rex...👍
That Altair in USAAC livery looks magnificent...
The very first prototype with the boxy rivited construction is just steam punk lovely
Superb Video, thank you. As always very interesting. I'm working on a project to build a large scale model of a P-30, but completely stumped for plans and drawings. Think going to have to use a model kit and scale up from that.
3:42 arguably "following a successful test flight" must include a successful landing…
Is it just me, or do the wings look really big?
Cheers Rex.
What was the thinking behind combining .3" and .5" machineguns in forward armament?
And why did nobody make 0.4" guns? 😂
I commented elsewhere that the .30cal was intended for use against fighters and the .50cal against (somewhat) more sturdily constructed bombers. Fighters were rather flimsy until the early 1930s so rifle calibre bullets were sufficient. Eventually that didn't hold up any more, of course.
The 50 is relatively heavy, as is the ammunition so two were thought to compromise performance too much. Compared to twin Vickers firing at 600rpm, an AN/M2 30 firing at 1200rpm and an M1921 50 was heavy armament in 1934. But that was the point France started putting 20mm cannon in, the RAF started looking at cannon in 1935, ditto Germany. So by 1939 it looked weak. But the USA was moving to two 30s, two 50s or about the same as a Spitfire.
@@jamesengland7461 I'm not sure. There may be a treaty limit, but I think we're looking at natural increases.
There were a number of 10/11mm rifles at the end of the black powder era.
The arrival of smokeless powder and spitzer bullets saw a drop into the .3" region (7.5 - 8mm).
Some rifle militaries stepped down to 6.5mm, and light machineguns followed.
But we're in the business of proper chunky aircraft size ammo.
All air forces would like an option of a heavier machinegun, so the gunsmiths go to work.
Who in their right mind is going to step up a tenth of an inch from .3" to .4".
You might as well take a bigger jump into the 12-15mm range.
I thought that I recognized some of the drawings that you used, and then you referenced the book US Fighters, where I had seen them.
Yay new video!
Not sure I have ever heard of this beastie.
Bit surprised there were (relatively speaking) so many of them built.
Good looking plane for that era.
Oh deary me. Here we go again. Didn't know this one. And I think it looks good. Shame it was not as good as it looked. Just look at it, It looks quick even parked on the ground. Thanks Chris.
Great review of a plane I have literally never heard of and I thought I knew most American aircraft of the era.
Love those pre-war paint schemes.
Cool video on a interesting plane I knew very little about.
What a nice looking plane :)
Merci beaucoup .
The US equivalent to the Boulton Paul Defiant. No doubt both seemed like a good idea at the time.
The Defiant had some success, though.
@@garryferrington811 Too many people ignore this fact.
The second world war began with a range of light aircraft designs.
Air forces had constructed a doctrine around these, but some of those doctrines were bad.
The Defiant found a niche as a reasonable night fighter until faster aircraft with forward facing cannon could carry radar and fill that role.
It's turret mounted guns could do what the later Schrage Musik installations did, and also attack at other angles.
The Bf110 was also a useful night fighter.
The Defiants and Bf110s which tried dogfighting against Bf109s and Spitfires didn't do so well.
Anyone know what the twin engined machine in the background at 10:38 is.
Looks like the front end of a Martin B-10/B-12 at far left...
Front three quarter closeup PB-2A view suggests a more-compact Fairey Battle...
I've always wondered ... if they would have turned the rear gunner's cockpit into an instructor's seat, and mounted an Allison engine onto the nose ... it might have made an even better advanced trainer than the AT-6.
PB-2A aircraft...
And I'm looking for the floats...
😮
1:06. Holy freakin' Ameri-Stuka, Batman.
Never ever heard of this bird
Actually, I was going to say...."That if you need a rear gunner, then you must be going too slow."
But in saying that, it still looks like a capable aircraft.
It's likely the two-seater concept was partially kept on to provide the pilot with someone to watch his six o'clock. Unfortunately, having the added weight and drag of the rear gunner probably slowed this fast plane down to a speed where it might be overtaken and shot at.
Are there a lot of backwards photos, or did some of these engines really turn counterclockwise from the cockpit vantage point? The pitch of the blades provides the impression. There are never any words or numbers in the photos by which to make the judgement.
The Curtiss Conqueror had it's own issues. Most of which stemmed from its USAAC imposed operating temperature of 300°F. That said l have often wondered if it would have nade an excellent tank engine later on. After all the Gord GA was derived from the Ford V-1650 aircraft engine design.
300F would be useful for Alaskan service…
Consolidates was Nip' n on the wrong...a branch, the USN luvs 2-seater fighters, still. See some compare to Bitt 30s fighters, Boult-on a turret, or Fairey a long battler. To me, looks like they ripped the wings off and put it on Fairchilds PT-19. Then US had that debate about no-inline then twin-engine dive bomber. Mind wanders if Vultee with V-11/YA-19 went for that, while other side of ex-Detroiters went in Pursuit direction. Anything just to cut into Curtiss-Wright stronghold, cause its seems an improve A-12 Shrike. Why didn't they send it down to the 3rd Attack Group for testing? Was it structurally solid enough to pull out of a drive run?
I have to laugh, The Curtiss P-6, I've seen scale models of it since the 1960's.
This is the first time I've heard it mentioned in actual history .
I guess it looked nice and not much else. 😁
And yet during WW1 I recall no twin seat fighters? could be wrong but? On another note a heated cockpit does sound nice 👍 . Thx.
I didn't know this model and I find it really interesting, I am into plastic models kits, is there a P30 plastic model?
I am not surprised that they liked the Lockheed Altair, as it was basically an Orion with only two small canopies. It goes like stink.
It favours a Fairey Battle in appearance
Looked like a capable fighter for the Navy.
Why did some planes of this time have a mismatched forward armament? this one has a 50 caliber and a 30 caliber forward machine gun. what was the logic behind that? If a fighter would have two forward weapons I would expect them to both be the same caliber/size. What am I missing here 🙂?
I’d suspect weight might be a factor, then cost but from my infantry experience we mixed .50cal HMG with 7.62mm on tripods on gun lines. .50 cal was great for point destruction whilst 7.62mm was best for rate of fire for suppression.
The Soviets carried single 12.7mm with 20mm in early WW2 fighters and would fire the HMG until on target to then hit with 20mm as it carried so few rounds. Maybe they had same idea with mixed calibres in the US?
It carried on to the end of the War tho. Spitfires had 2x 7.7mm and 2x 20mm, BF109s had 2x 7.6mm and 1x 20mm (later 2x13mm and a 30mm)
.30cal for fighter-to-fighter combat and .50cal for fighter-to-bomber work. Fighter aircraft were rather flimsy affairs until the early 1930s and rifle calibre rounds were usually enough to shoot one down. Armour was virtually non-existent, as were self-sealing fuel tanks. Bombers were a bit more sturdily built, hence the .50cal to deal with those. Of course development in aviation technology eventually made the .30cal (and comparable calibres) obsolete and for American aircraft multiple .50cal machine guns became the norm (with a 20mm or 37mm cannon thrown in here and there, i.e. in the P-38 and the P-39.).
@@alias_aka_alias From Wikipedia: '(...) Different wings, featuring a variety of weapons, were fitted to most marks [of Spitfire]; the A wing used eight .303 in (7.7 mm) machine guns, the B wing had four .303 in (7.7 mm) machine guns and two 20 mm (.79 in) Hispano cannons, and the C, or universal, wing could mount either four 20 mm (.79 in) cannons or two 20 mm (.79 in) and four .303 in (7.7 mm) machine guns. As the war progressed, the C wing became more common. Another armament variation was the E wing which housed two 20 mm (.79 in) cannons and two .50 in (12.7 mm) Browning machine guns.'
@@alias_aka_alias4 7.7, 2 20mm in Spitfires, although mostly 2 50, 2 20mm by war's end.
I need to ask what is the small tube located between the propeller and cockpit?
Gunsight.
@@jefferyindorf699 How does it work? I have a scoped airgun and the eye relief plus the small diameter of the tube make that seem hard to see
Heres a video idea, you could trying ranking the most "beautiful" aircraft ever made, starting with the British, like you did last time (i'm not sure you did start with the british last time acutally)
By turbo supercharged do U mean twincharged?
No, turbo is used to differentiate between exhaust driven and mechanically driven superchargers; you also have single stage and two stage supercharges
@@jamesberry3230 a supercharger is mechanically driven and a turbocharger is exhaust driven and anyway do U know any aircraft engine that's twincharged
It means the engine uses both a turbocharger and a supercharger to boost manifold pressure.
@@j_taylor are U talking about twincharged or turbo supercharged
@@Miko-yi5zwTurbosupercharger is just an old term for what we now cal turbos. With turbochargers being another term for the same thing.
It's like the difference between leading edge flaps and leading edge slats. As far as I'm aware it's just a term for high lift devices on the leading edge of the wing. With all manufacturers having a preference for one of these terms and design habits, the public starts seeing patterns where there are none.
Good video. It actually might have made a reasonable night fighter, with the rear gunner as radar operator. Otherwise, two-seater single engine aircraft were not up to WW2 use as fighters.
I have this cockpit layout I thought up years ago in 1st-year college (I was a dumbass), where the rear gunner also serves as a co-pilot taking over the main guy to let him rest while in flight or in a fight (like a buddy system)
But since the other's a rear gunner it also put a lot of strain on him doing two jobs so I realize that idea of mine is somewhat useless. But hey, who knows? Maybe it'll work in fiction works in novels or Anime
Actually there is more merit to your idea than you think. The co-pilot wouldnt really need to man the rear MG during long transit anyway, so he could take over and let the pilot rest for a while, and in combat the pilot would be piloting anyway, so long as bullets miss him, and the rear gunner can do his job. At no point is there any real double duty.
It looks like a 600 hp propeller. Almost goes unnoticed. Might as well be a child’s pinwheel.
If Britain was so far ahead in producing radar, why were they one of the last to use navy planes with a dedicated navigator? Was it just such a secret that the navy didn't know it was coming down the line?
Also, xfv-12, *WHEN??...*
Looks like an elongated ME109.
So it is somewhat like the Defiant but American?
Just when you think you've seen them all.
👍👍👍
Well I guess my question of why WW2 fighters were (almost?) always single and not double seaters. A rear firing machine gun seems life saving and invaluable to me but I guess you may as well have 150 pounds of rocks behind you if he blacks out.
150lb of rocks provided better armor…
Conversion to metrics in footnotes would be much apreciated for comparison to foreign planes, thx :)
Steps, dude! Don't get your panties in a hysterical bunch.
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Then there were some dollars sloshing around for modern weopens?
Rapid advances in technology, training and tactics doomed this aircraft and others like it--sometimes in actual combat when the stakes proved fatal.
Am I the only one after seeing the front views being unable to shake the thought it looks Me109/He112ish??
Amazing time. 3-5 years makes a plane completely obsolete. Whereas today, 50 years from design to decommissioning is desired.
Back then, it was all about airframe, performance and carrying capacity.
Now a 50 year old design (probably not an airframe with 50 years continuous service), might be almost as capable as a new design.
Disclaimer: That 50 year old airframe needs a seriously updated electronics package to be competitive.
I bet the future is 0 seat fighters and I will be disappointed if they do not call the first AI-driven autonomous fighter the Terminator
A case of too much goodness too soon
Wow. Yet another US aircraft I never heard of.
It is quite surprising that America didn't have the funds to finance a prototype, since America produces one million dollars of dept every 32 seconds today.
What a baffling period for aircraft. From open cockpits and fixed landing gear to retractable gear and enclosed cockpits. No wonder nobody wanted to buy planes because it would be junk or obsolete way too fast.
Should have named it the albatross…
How the hell can the pilot even see the runway?
At least they got making it ugly right.
Seems like the ground attack version would've actually been viable, so naturally it was the useless two-seat fighter that the Army bought.
plane looking for a mission?
I can’t help thinking…why didn’t they just design a single seat fighter lol
Yeah ... if you look at all those aircraft designation numbers - think about how many numbers you don't know anything about the aircraft that got them.
.
As a fighter pretty much useless. As an observation/attack aircraft maybe not too bad. Two seat piston engined fighters only made sense once airborne radar became practical. And then really only as night fighters. Plus all of these early to mid 30s aircraft are ridiculously underarmed imo. One thing the US had Beowning develop the M2 .50 for was to be used in fighter aircraft. Even by 1945 US fighters were undergunnded to a large degree. Thanks to the Bureau of Ordinance (or is it the Board?) production of the 20mm Hispano was a complete cluster #/×@. Seems the BoO screwed up converting the metric dimensions and most importantly the tolerances to inches (1). As l understand it th he British looked at some of the early examples and were very impressed with the quality of the manufacturing. It's just that the guns wouldn't work.
1) Converting dimensions and tolerances is not rocket science. I used to have to do it on a regular basis inspecting and doing drawings of parts. Another factor might have been in the steels or other materials used. Aside from the SAE carbon steel numbering system there were not a lot of numbering systems in use that gave a hint as to the alloying elements. Lots of proprietary formulas.
Yes, it was "Bureau of Ordinance' or "BuOrd"
Perfect Plane Wrong Role
Aullll.
too many ads you will lose veiwership
What a weird looking aircraft. You can see the future in it, but everything is slightly wonky.