Fairey Firefly: The first multi-role naval strike fighter
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 лис 2024
- It was big. It was heavy. It was late. The Fairey Firefly emerged from pre-World War II British Admiralty requirements and chaos brought about by the Battle of Britain to eventually become a successful dual-seat, variable geometry (thanks to its Youngman flaps) strike fighter.
It was a precursor to the Joint Strike Fighter.
It was a jack of all trades.
And a master of none.
In a dogfight it was able to turn with a Nakajima Oscar. As an interceptor, it held its own down low. As a strike-fighter, it carried a useful load over a useful distance. As a reconnaissance fighter, it had a chance. As an anti-submarine platform, it was worthwhile.
But this Griffon-engined Fleet Air Arm workhorse sat in the gap between an era when the second seat was vital if the aircraft was ever to find its carrier again, and when the warfare officer became an indispensable part of managing its arsenal.
MEMORIES OF WAR @ArmouredCarriers
• IN THEIR OWN WORDS ◁ Related documentary series here
• USER EXPERIENCE ◁ Related documentary series here
► Website - www.armouredca...
► Twitter - @ArmouredCarrier
SEO hashtags
#documentary #military #ww2 #navy #war #history #warthunder #worldofwarships #dark #lost #memories #aircraftcarrier #airplane
The improved centimetric radar was actually a joint US-UK development. The British TRE and the US Rad Lab each developed their own prototypes and arranged a competition on July 15 1942 to determine which one was better. The initial tests showed little difference with the American set having slightly more range and the British set slightly better discrimination. Further testing showed the Americans had built a better transmitter and the British had built a better receiver. So they hooked the American transmitter to the British receiver and the hybrid set proved to have three times the range of either prototype.
Not quit accurate historical speaking American radar technology was years behind the British and for that matter Germans pre war and would have been thought out ww2 had it not been Frankly for the British scientist and Churchill because American radar improved greatly because the British handed over to the Americas what was then ""British top secret technology "" A copy of the ""Cavity magnetron "" this transformed radar in one huge leap a device that created the short wave microwave that changed overnight the Americans understanding of radar we gave them also the latest airborne aír interception/search radar The ASV MK II aswel as H2S sets British bombers were using that and the. ""Proximity fuse"" that was fitted to artillery shells which is used to this day currently in modern ordinance this happened because Churchill decided it was a good Idea to give away all British top secret technology much to the dismay and protest of his scientists and advisors This was called the Tizard Mission 1940
the radar set yes, but the brits developed the centimetric emitter that the set used.
Of course neither version would have been possible without the British cavity magnetron which Britain gifted to their US ally. BTW, the cavity magnetron and centimetric radar are among the several good things to bring up if you find yourself talking to one of those nazi-ists harping on about Germany having ALL the best tech.
The Germans had a lot of good stuff with future potential but often no practical value for the situation they were in. For example V1 and V 2, military worth zero without an accurate target system and an (atomic) warhead. Same thing with the ME 262. great promise for the future, quite useless ad hoc. The allies had really useful stuff like centrimetric radar and the proximity fuse and a lot of perfectly good fighters with the necessary fuel to fly them and train the pilots. And I am german😂. And if the German s built something useful like the Panther tank they ruined it by not having the tooling to build reliable final drives. The devil is in the detail.
Amazing to hear these stories and the voice of Desmond Wilkey. My father and his 2 brothers served in the Fleet Air Arm during the war. My father's eldest brother Was an observer in 1770 sqdn under Desmond Wilkey. Unfortunately he and his pilot went missing off the coast Scotland whilst the squadron was training for the attack on the Tirpitz a few weeks later. After the war I understand Desmond Wilkey went into the General Post Office and worked for my maternal grandfather and at my parents' wedding thought he was seeing a ghost when he saw my father.
All those old chaps talking about their experiences...pure Gold!
My father was on the Carrier Wasp CV18 in the Pacific and told me about Indefatigable out there with them.These are wonderful stories of brave men loved hearing every one
Wonderful to hear these oral histories!
For Americans, we need to appreciate more of the British contribution in the Pacific.
And thanks to all of you!
The contributions of the brave men of the RN deserve recognition. The folks who designed their carrier aircraft? Not so much.
@@coogrfan Not fair really. The problem with British Naval aircraft design was the lack of an engine for carrier use, not the fault of the aircraft designers. It seemed every time they did design around an engine either the engine got removed to OTHER duties or had massive teething problems effectively neutering the aircraft in question. It wasn't until the Bristol Centaurus engine became reliable that British aircraft design could take the next step forward. Radials, while heavier than inline engines, were vastly more reliable and also gave that most important boost in HP allowing naval aircraft to carry all that extra carrier landing weight, folding wings weight, and the need for excessive range(fuel) before one even talks about Torpedoes, bombs, etc.
@@w8stral Fair enough.
@@w8stral But the massive teething troubles were BECAUSE of their design work, though. Don't try to pretend that you Brits didn't desperately need American aircraft or that yours were better either, because neither is true, you guys had come up with more ugly, dogshit-performance aircraft than not.
Thank you too!
Its wonderful to hear the voices of these brave men.
Armoured Carriers never disappoints. Absolutely wonderful stuff
Thanks. It can be a challenge. But it's fun.
Spot on footage, amazing dialogues and testimony, immaculately edited, well respected and presented, this channel is a treasure. Gold.
Brilliant how the commentary matches so well to the different videos. For example the navigator describing his pilot experience of landing a Walrus on the sea was matched by a video of a Walrus. Absolutely perfect. Very very good.
Glad you like it. I can't always find matching clips. But I try where I can.
This channel should be required watching, criminally undersubscribed. Keep it up, your content is exceptional.
Heh, thanks. I do it to counterbalance some of the uninformed crap that's out there. How better to do that than to use the voice of those who were there?
They are not always correct in every detail, but they experienced how these aircraft and events fitted the context of the times they happened in.
11:15 The RP-3 or “rocket spear” was a British made weapon. Originally conceived as anti-tank rocket, it was further developed for the Admiralty for anti-submarine use, by a former Vickers engineer, Lt-Commander Norway, better known to the world as the novelist Neville Shute, at the Directorate of Miscellaneous Weapons Development. Their explosive warhead was contained in an iron or steel head that could puncture a U-boat pressure hull & prevent it from diving, described as giving a naval fighter the punch of a cruiser.
As a much younger man I worked with someone who had been an RAF armourer very soon after WWII, was very familiar with the rockets, and told me that they had never really worked as reliably as intended during the war, so depending on the mission were often fitted with a concrete warhead because a 60lb lump of concrete arriving at something approaching Mach 1 will make a mess of whatever it hits anyway. 😁
And not a lot of accuracy though?
@@offshoretomorrow3346 Indeed, but I think the basic idea was to spam a target rather than be pinpoint accurate.
There are simply too many variables in firing an unguided air-to-surface missile from an aircraft that's also maneuvering to avoid giving anti-aircraft gunners an easy target.
Worth noting that there were 2 warheads;
The 60lb warhead was semi-armour piercing and preferred for ground use (it armed Hurricane, Mosquitoe and most famously Typhoon as well)
The 25lb warhead was fully armour piercing, solid shot. Used primarily against Submarines.
The interesting thing about the 25lb AP rocket was that you could fire them direct at the submarine, but also into the water directly alongside, a few yards away. The rockets, completely unintentionally, would hit the water, be deflected by the impact, then continue at high speed underwater just underneath the surface until they hit the U-Boat and penetrated the pressure hull. So even a near miss could be fatal for a target.
*Just wanted to say I just stumbled on this channel through this video* and wanted to compliment you because this format is fantastic. Hearing directly from the people who flew the aircraft in context and in era, is priceless, whilst graphs, numbers and gun camera footage can be gotten anytime and doesn't tell you how things compared to each other like a human being who experienced it can. Your footage is also delightful. 10/10 subscribed and will recommend.
When I did my apprentice training (Navy, early 70's) we had one of these in our "gym".
The training base was an ex NAS, and our gym was one end of an aircraft hangar, and we had to go there for compulsory PT.
The other end was used by the air apprentices, and had a Grumman tracker, a DH Sea Venom, and a Firefly.
Looking back, I should have taken a longer look at them.
Back then they were just "planes that were in the way." :-)
This is superb,thanks for posting!...I remember seeing a Firefly fly over Speke in Liverpool during the late70s/early 80s....it was accompanied by an AVRO Shackleton for some shows & festivals in the area....I remember the noise to this day, my parents house was right under the landing approach to Speke(Liverpool Airport).....Great memories!!!!
Thank you for covering the Fairey Firefly .
Thanks. There wasn't a lot of available material. But there was enough ...
It was a real surprise to learn that this aircraft - no 'looker' - was such a hot-rod. Ammo-tray transfer: love it!
Another superb program.
I remember building the Frog 1/72 scale kit in the 1970's and noticing that the U.S. Navy did not have anything quite like it...
I guess the modern equivalent would be the F-18F Super Bug...
The marked contrast between the prevailing modern opinion that the FAA's two seat fighters were next to useless, compared to the highly positive opinions of the aircraft by the men who actually flew them highlights how invaluable these accounts are to a proper understanding of the war.
Context... The problem of the opinion of the day and in modern times was in calling them fighters instead of what they were: Attack aircraft. Change the term and no one has "problems" anymore. As for the accounts of those who use them... well uh, pilots ALWAYS love their planes unless it is a complete DOG where you are more likely to die than do anything useful like the USN Devastator. The RN aviator 1st hand accounts are especially questionable since no one was actually shooting at them. Its like all the pilots of the Cold war era praising their aircraft from any nation... How truthful are they? None of them were exchanging direct fire other than a very select few over Vietnam and even then there were so many rules as to make things fairly ridiculous. The ultimate of the WWII is the swordfish... it was a complete and utter relic/dog, but due to a couple early war surprise uses, it escapes being called a dog, when in reality, everyone knows... it was a dog just like the joke called the Douglas Devastator. EDIT: The truth is, you use what you have, not what you wish you had and why the use of the swordfish gets the praise it did as those USING the swordfish got the maximum from it whereas dogs like the Douglas Devastator... did not.
Why did FAA insist on two-seat, multi-roll fighter-recon and torpedo-recon aircraft? How did they expect to counter Japanese types with Fireflys and Barracudas? The UK invented carrier aviation but ended up needing Seafires, US Hellcats, Corsairs and Avengers.
@@w8stral Dog. Ha ha. Harsh. Admittedly, both were more poodle than greyhound.
@@littlefluffybushbaby7256 Harsh, but accurate. Every pilot "loves" their aircraft ... 99% of the pilots experienced "opinions" the hottest aircraft they had ever flown was their dog(dogs are loyal), just not very useful. It is utterly absurd to take pilots opinions as anything other than Nostalgia and certainly not accurate.
@@w8stral Last year I did quite a bit of gliding and flew in two types of glider. I had a preference, but would have to admit, although there were concrete reasons for the preference, part of it was looks. Like picking a car so many factors come into play. There's something to be said for ones that are reliable (or loyal) as opposed to sporty.
There's probably a veteran pilot out there that had a favorite fighter based on the fact it had a beer holder and an ash tray. :) The Firefly's nose does look very dog-like though.
This is the way all documentaries should be made.
I remember passing the Fairey factory that was on the west side of the road leading to the tunnel under the runway at what used to be called London Airport. I noted a whole lot of discarded Firefly fuselages stacked against the fence. I reckon it would have been 1959 or 1960; the tunnel was very new then. I wonder how long they had been there, I read once that several losses were occasioned when testing early Fireflies with the canopy becoming detached and striking the tailplane.
W Harrison's book about the plane makes interesting reading, and mentions the problem. At first the tailplane itself was blamed and they changed its manufacture from canvas to metal, but it wasn't until one of the pilots of 1770 sqdn survived a canopy being detached and was able to report what happened that the boffins realised what was happening. It turned out that when the aircraft was flown at high speed the pilots canopy flexed causing it to detach, hitting the pilot in the head. The test pilot losses were probably due to them being knocked unconious and therefore unable to recover the plane.
What an interesting beast of an Aircraft, I know we had the TBF Avenger, but this Aircraft was on a whole new level, just a total beast!!
It even soldiered on into the Korean War and was very effective there, just like the US Corsair's.
That Walrus was landing at Portland Naval base Dorset, outside the breakwater.
Brilliant documentary with archive footage and personal accounts. Thanks for sharing.
Terrific piece marvellous footage and interviews thank you
One feature it had that the Spitfire needed, the wide set undercarriage that folded inwards. I presume the white object under the nose of some aircraft was the radar. Certainly a lot more compact than the German version used on the M110 night fighter that looked like it had a pair of VHF TV antenna hanging on the nose.
Spit wing was too thin to have a wide undercarriage
Very handsome aeroplane, in my opinion - especially in the air.
As always truly excellent content-thank you!
Pure class as usual.
I attended an airshow at RNAS Culdrose in the late 1950s with my father aged around 9 or 10 and wandered off during a break in flying with another lad of the same age, exploring. Ignoring a 'No Entry' sign we investigated several airframes lying together as scrap, one of which, years later I discovered was a Firefly (being plane 'mad' I thought it was a Spitfire because of its wing shape...although.... a very long one!). The most exciting thing about this wreck was that the ailerons were still connected to the joystick. Now 72 I still remember my flight in the Firefly 😄 and, some time later, the shout of an irate PO to "get out of it" 😏. Great fun 😁.
My father was a navy gunner who spent time on Ark Royal and Empress eventually seeing the war out on Rodney, I remember him telling me that he often got “rides” in some of the aircraft from the carriers he served on, wonder if he ever got a go in a Firefly?
I,ve loved this aircraft since seeing the navy historic flight mk 5 at Couldrose airshow in the early 90's maybe? Looks so good and the sound of that Griffin, best sounding engine ever!
Thank you.
Very enjoyable video
One of the British aircraft lesser heard of
Never knew about this aircraft! Way interesting!
There is a Firefly at the Royal Thai Air Force museum in Bangkok - it's fairly close to Don Mueang airport, and it's a lot easier to get to since they opened the BTS Skytrain extension (I used to take an unairconditioned bus that would take 45 minutes to get there from north Bangkok). Definitely worth a visit - they also have a Spitfire FR XIVe, a Sea Harrier (didn't even know the Thai Navy had a carrier, let alone operated Harriers), a AD-1 Skyraider (that and the Firefly are HUGE airplanes), and IIRC, a Vultee A31 Vengeance, as well as some other less-interesting stuff like a Mig-21 (gift from Vietnam), one or two F5Es and a SAAB Gripen.
They still have a carrier
@@sugarnads It's no longer supports fixed wing operations, though. I think they still fly helicopters off it.
Solid video - great editing and selection of footage. The Firefly sounds like it was a winner at last.
(Also nice to see the Walrus making its water landing in Weymouth Bay; I'd never mistake those cliffs around White Nothe. Lovely coastline and clement waters in the lee of Portland of course.)
Some of the last British Fireflies in service must have been the maroon-painted target drones that were being flown around Ringway Airport (that was still in Cheshire at the time) in the late 1950s. Their engines had a distinctive growl unlike anything else being flown in and out of the [then-small] airport (a lot of the traffic still being piston-engined, like the DC-3s, Yorks and the odd Ambassador).
Very interesting as always, thanks for the posting.
"The Barracuda, we didn't like very much, because the wings wouldn't stay on very often" 😂
Wonderfully produced and informative videos.😎
I remember seeing the FAA Firefly at the Mildenhall air show years ago - what a beast! Unfortunately the plane was destroyed in a crash sometime later and both crew killed.
Fantastic. So looking forward to this one.
Outstanding content as usual.
Excellent and well made video - Thanks!
Excellent piece of work 👍🏻
Eric Winkle Brown was the best pilot in WW2. Wonderful British understatement: nobody liked the Barracuda: the wings wouldn't stay on the thing."
A very nice anecdote! That's how VIPs behave in reality. I mean, in movies, such reckless, brave pilots usually just receive a reprimand...and are put in command of a squadron!🤣🤣🤣
I'll make the argument for SBD Dauntless being the first multrole naval combat aircraft. There are reports of SBD's flying cap missions and getting gun kills on the A6M Zero.
Well...Capt. Buckmaster (Yorktown), I think, had the idea of using the SBD as CAP against torpedo bombers. Best I remember from Lundstrom's "First Team", it did not work well. However, groups of Dauntlesses could hold off Japanese attackers so incautious as to forget that the SBD had a dual-30 caliber machine gun, and that a group of them could be pretty tough when working together. And sometimes an ornery Dauntless pilot might shoot down a Zero that got in the way of the twin-50 cal forward-firing guns. The Firefly, though, reminds me more of a two-seated radar-bearing Typhoon. Imagine if USN escort carriers had had Fireflies at the Battle off Samar! (Having read Hornfisher's "Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors", and the way that Wildcats raked the bridges of Japanese battleships and cruisers)
The Firefly was a wonderful plane as long as you didn't try to take on a single seat fighter.
Great video very informative thanks for uploading it
This is the must see RN naval aviation website, consistant excellence, and including some lesser known aircraft
You can say that again!
It was a more than competent workhorse and came as a big relief to the FAA who had used aircraft with obsolete designs up to then.
As always, it's a matter of comparing apples with apples. And that means timeframes.
The Fairey Fulmar was in combat when the primary US Naval fleet fighter was the F2F biplane, for example.
But yes, the pace of change during the War often meant "cutting edge" became "obsolete" within just two or three years - such as 1939 to 1942.
@@michellebrown4903 Talking straight out your ass again I see. How old are you? I know you can’t be more than about 25. Keep trying.
@@ArmouredCarriers Or 1917-1918
@@ArmouredCarriers or even a year
Excellent doco.
At about 5:10, the ground crew is replacing little drums that appear to hold ammunition for the 20mm cannons. They are really small. Surely they carried more ammunition than that. The P-51 carried something like 1880 rounds. Of course, they were smaller (50 cal vs 20mm). Still it is hard to believe that the Firefly carried so little ammunition. Can anyone help me out?
the 4 x 20 mm Hispano Mk II cannons carry 160 rounds per gun for a total capacity of 640 rounds.
You need an eye exam
Fantastic video, well done
Top notch as always!👍🏻
In fairness to His late Majesty, with its elliptical wing a Firefly could easily be mistaken for a Spit.
A good thing for His Majesty that the well-known laxative effect of an extrememly low-flying a/c did not occur. While making the 1954 film 'The Dam Busters', low flying at 40 feet (as requested by MrAnderson), in the Lake District, some toilet rolls were dropped over a stately hotel. The 'plane was reported by a resident who was a displaced member of a European royal family.
See the picture "Malta Story" (1953) which used derelict Fireflies* as 'war-damaged Spitfires'.
* with 'peacetime' underwing serials
Fantastic video and public record as usual. I always learn a lot from these. Thank you for all your efforts.
The Griffon was 36 Litre the Merlin 26 two different engines. Both designed and built by Rolls Royce the Merlin was built under licence by other organisations like Packard. 146,000 Merlin’s built 55,000 by Packard.
The USN adapted the Hellcat as a Night-Fighter , was it successful in that role. The RAF done the same with a few Typhoons without much joy. The two seat Radar equipped NF was far more effective then a single .
The Royal Navy also had a handful of night fighter Hellcats aboard HMS Formidable off Japan in the last days of the war. By all accounts they were effective enough for the "delousing" (looking for hostile aircraft following returning strike aircraft) job they did. I'm not certain if the Fireflies aboard Implacable and Indefatigable operated in that role at that time.
В ссср в конце 80-х продавалась склеиваемая модель этого самолета ,белая пластмасса.Но названия не было на коробке.Всегда было интересно узнать как называется,и здесь чисто случайно нашел.
Thanks , Great video !
I think the A-1 Skyraider was a better choice which also came late in the war, but both were great propeller planes.
Skyraider came in 1946. So that's the same 3-year development cycle that saw the Firefly come after the Fulmar of 1940.
Three years was a long time back then.
The RN had 50 Skyraiders, but they were used in the carrier borne aew role until replaced by the Fairy Gannet.
The requirement that lead eventually to the AD-1 started off as a two-seater.
Brilliant stuff, as usual.
Interesting to hear first hand accounts
Wonder why when the Griffen engined Spitfires got a 5 blade propeller to make use of its immense power the Firefly only had an old 3 blade propeller, not even a 4 blade.
I had a laugh at the fellow taking a nap during classroom instruction.
The Griffon was a development of the Rolls-Royce R engine from the Supermarine S6B not the Merlin.
This is what my Father would probably have flown had the War not ended whilst he was transfering from the RAF to Fleet Air Arm.
That airplane looks startled. 😲 Ooh!
Brilliant!
what a cool little plane :)
Nice armourer about 5:15 :-)
love these videos ..
A bit like the NAVAL version of the Typhoon.
Ha! Just what I thought!
Imagine how much safer. less accidents and pilots killed there could have been if the angled deck had been designed for aircraft carriers from the start.
It’s constantly amazing how so many ideas look obvious - after they are thought of!
Reminds me a lot of a P-40.
I will never cease to be amazed by the ability of WWII Britain to design horrible looking carrier aircraft. It's almost as if ugly was a design goal.
Later versions of the Fairey Firefly looked much better.
I think the RAF insisted it be in the specification. The didn't want navy types getting above themselves. OK, you can have aircraft, but not pretty ones. I think for a plane to be able to survive being slammed into a deck they have to be a bit robust, add to that other similar factors and there weren't many elegant looking carrier planes. They tend to be more brutal.
Great Stuff :)
Marvelous! TFP
The memoirs of the former pilots are a bit mixed. The Firefly was a follow on from the Fulmar and was intended as a Fleet fighter / Recce aircraft. The crew of two allowed for a navigator to find the Carrier in poor weather. The concept was shot down by American single seat fighters that were faster, more agile and could carry a similar weapon load. By the time the Firefly was in service the Hellcat and Corsair were far superior fleet fighters. Purchased off the drawing board in 1941 it saw limited service and after WWII most were converted to target tugs.
The Firefly was used in Korea as a ground attack aircraft by the Royal Navy and RAN. Also used by Canada and the Netherlands it flew well into the 1950s. It was a versatile aircraft that was used for many roles including ASW.
@@timb3499 It was designed as a fleet defense fighter, but as you said yourself ended up as a ground attack / ASW platform. Its large size and slow speed made it unsuitable for its designed role, as the Fulmar was before it. They were sold off cheap to other to other navies using small carriers unsuitable for higher performance aircraft
@@billballbuster7186 just trying to make the point that it’s more than a target tug.
I think British carrier operations were largely in the overcast and stormy Atlantic and arctic rather than the sunny skies over the pacific. Hence a navigator was required.
@@annoyingbstard9407 The RAF and the RN both thought that an aircraft needed a navigator to fly over water. (The RAF controlled all British aircraft procurement until just before war broke out). The USN, which had the advantage of never having been forced to give up control, had had single-seat fighters for many years. The USN operated carriers in both the Atlantic and Pacific. In December, 1941, Yorktown (CV-5) and Hornet (CV-8) were at Norfolk, and Ranger (CV-4) and Wasp (CV-7) were also in the Atlantic.
As an old geezer myself, I really think these old geezers should do a rehearsal or two before cranking out their otherwise interesting reminiscences.
BEAUTIFULL
I wish the aircraft speed would be given in knots. Km/hr is ABSURD. I’m sure the IAS on the aircraft , particularly the Fleet Air Arm , was in knots would have been in knots, so why not use it.
Having got that off my chest, I thoroughly enjoyed the program.
Agree 👍
Feel free to break out your calculator
@@WALTERBROADDUSStupid Reply, Why convert it to KMH when it would of been in Knots irigionaly
@@ianlitchfield9273 because most people don't use nautical miles. I don't know why you're stressing about this?
@@WALTERBROADDUS Excuse me for pointing out that most of the worlds aircraft , and ships, use knots !! A knot is 15% more than mph, but more importantly it is directly related to the earths diameter , one minute of arc, and charts are laid out in nautical miles.
Nice elliptical wing, just a little too thick though.
Mk.2 was prettier: a fave Airfix kit ⭐
Those air intakes behind the prop....what were they for please?
I assume they re the intakes for the engine carbs
@@johngriffiths118 more efficient engine?
Super 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Great video on a not to familiar aircraft. Hopefully one or two are airworthy today.
Finally found a decent channel 😉👋
0:50 that’s not that quick mate if a 109 is after you
That footage from the landing accidents is hair-raising, even through a computer screen.
BPF ☝🏻
Love it will
you do a specific video on this aircrafts involvement in Operation Meridian?
I think I included comments from Wilkey in my videos on Palembang. But there's not enough audio that I've been able to find to do a specific Firefly episode, sorry.
@@ArmouredCarriers all god
I did hear it
But
Your videos have been such an inspiration to me I am painting up “squadrons“ of aircraft for blood red skies to do a Palambang scenario
@@SGusky Glad you've found them so useful.
@@ArmouredCarriers Thanks I used the decal sheet that you featured on your website ( forgotten campaigns from casper)showing the different aircraft involved
I had a Miscellaneous Miniatures make up the Decal Sheets for each Squadron
And the folks at Lead Pursuit help design the aircraft STL files in 1/200
I have everything but those darn fireflies
There might be a liquor two over on my channel I think I posted the Nicks versus corsairs..
Putting together a Campaign pack for the game right now….
Thank you for being inspirational I am also building a lot of the aircraft in 1/72 scale for another game we play
Typical Jack of all trades and master of none!!!
"Fairey On-firefly"
No that would be the Fairey Fulmar. The Firefly is just a improved Fulmar.
No more so than the Hellcat is just an improved Wildcat.
Nope:. The F4U Corsair was the first naval.multirole strikefighter
I guess the US Marine Corps is naval, yes. But they didn't become operational on US aircraft carriers until after the order was given in November 1944 to move Marine Corsair squadrons aboard carriers to help combat kamikazes. But the RN began using Corsairs at pretty much the same time as Fireflies in late 43.
@@ArmouredCarriers Veteran VF-17 equipped with Corsairs went to sea on USS Hornet in 1943. The Navy pulled the Corsair for logistical reasons not because of poor carrier suitability. They wanted a single aircraft across the fleet carrier force.
If you would have said SBD Dauntless you might have scored.
@@ArmouredCarriers The Corsair may have been late to sea but was the backbone of US Navy air groups until 1954 outlasting the Bearcat by 4 years. French F4U-7s were flown operationally into the 1960s.
and saved the best story for last. 🤣
Isn't that the Martin Baker MB5 at 0.30
In the far distance? Could be ... (The promotional film the clip is taken from was immediately past war at an FAA training field)
@@ArmouredCarriers looks more like a Defiant to me
To be fair the firefly is much better than the fairy fulmar.the video showed she's agile enough.fulmar deadball against the zero
George VI you grass!
did he have nazi ties
No. But his wife did.