Like A M Fortas below, when I was younger, I wanted one of these as place to live in. Better than a yacht and with those big bulge canopies on the fuselage, the views must've been incredible over the islands of the Pacific Ocean.
Hi shelb and driver. I'm here because I think the Catalina was the most beautiful aircraft ever built. I don't know that much about flying, but I've read it was - and still is - quite tricky to land - has to kept between 67 and 70 knots, or some such. PWM
The rivets were not "mild steel". That would have created a host of problems, not to mention increasing the weight of the aircraft. Those rivets were made from a precipitation-hardening aluminum alloy, and were kept frozen until they were used to keep them soft. This simple observation casts doubt on any other factual assertion made here.
Actually, there were around 1,300 PBM's built, and over 3,000 Catalinas. But yeah, I also consider the PBM a superior design and I wish it was easier to find in kit form. :/
It was NOT designed as a bomber. It was too slow to escape interception and too lightly (and awkwardly) armed to effectively defend itself when intercepted. Hardly the traits of an aircraft "designed as a bomber"! It was designed as a patrol aircraft (perhaps even "patrol-utility" if such a thing existed...Grumman Duck perhaps...). Yes, it could carry bombs or torpedoes for night time attack and anti-shipping, anti-sub operations... in areas where no aerial opposition was to be expected (even then their slow speed made them vulnerable to AA). Using your criteria, one could just as easily say that it had been designed as a search and rescue aircraft due to the numbers of downed pilots and stranded troops that it ferried out of harm's way. Was it a useful and versatile aircraft? Damned right! Reliable? Well, some are still flying today and post-war, they were EVERYWHERE doing damned near EVERYTHING.
It is a patrol aircraft in all their terms... any MPA is slow and has very little oportunity against a fighter... it happened in the past with Catalina, with P3 Orion, P8 Poseidon... you name it... But all of them had very impressive technology for their time and were more than able to chase submarines. Hell, i think if catalina were remotorized with Turboprops and some design changes, they could be valid MPA for modern day, since the main needs of such aircrafts are a pretty good radar and technology inside anyway
PBY literally means Patrol Bomber, Consolidated. So it is a bomber. It was never meant to go up against real fighter defenses. So yeah, it's a bomber. Even with only two bomb racks for one bomb each.
Yeah, I'm sure they did as zinc chromate primer was used extensively back then--just as it was when I got into aircraft maintenance in the 1980s. But I wouldn't think the primer would get between the rivets and the skin--they'd have to spray the skins before applying the rivets (and also coat the rivets) to have any hope of that, and there are clearly shots of the bare metal fuselage in the video here (and in other places I've seen). So the differential metal corrosion would happen under the primer, is what I'm saying. I was able to find a copy of the PBY operating manual online, and there is definite mention of aluminum skins in it. But I haven't yet found any mention of rivet material in there however.
I saw a documentary on it and the paint is applied in a totally dust free zone. Plus the rivets are put on before painting and they are actually put in a freezer until they are installed to ensure a very tight fit. I don't think any paint will get under that.
Right--I saw that as well. I seriously doubt they are using mild steel rivets, unless they really didn't care about longevity. If the anticipated lifespan of the aircraft is predicted to be months or a few years at most, then my guess is that they really didn't care that much if there was a bit of corrosion. Otherwise, the video likely just mis-states the material. I believe they had aluminum rivets back in those days, so it's certainly possible they could have been used in these aircraft. When I was in Aircraft Mechanic's school in the early 80s, we had a few instructors who had been mechanics in the military in WWII. I cannot recall one of them ever mentioning the use of steel rivet in aluminum skin, but I suppose I might just be remembering it incorrectly. Another thing--given the number of rivets in the airframes back in those days, the weight differential between steel and aluminum rivets would likely have been significant. Imagine how many rivets got used in something like a B-29 for instance! So I have my doubts about the material as mentioned in the video, but I'll keep nosing around the Internet a bit. Maybe I can come up with something else.
@@bluehornet6752 remember when they built these they didn't exspect them to last for very long because of the war. Surely not for 75 yrs. Aluminium rivets would have sheared off with the pounding of take offs and landings thats why they used mild steel rivets for the added strength.
Like A M Fortas below, when I was younger, I wanted one of these as place to live in. Better than a yacht and with those big bulge canopies on the fuselage, the views must've been incredible over the islands of the Pacific Ocean.
Great design, I've always loved this plane.
one of my favorites planes of ww2.
superb video.
Fantastic PBY History. Thanks for sharing!
Hi shelb and driver. I'm here because I think the Catalina was the most beautiful aircraft ever built. I don't know that much about flying, but I've read it was - and still is - quite tricky to land - has to kept between 67 and 70 knots, or some such.
PWM
What a fascinating airplane able to land or take off on land and sea. Highly favorable to be a reconnaissance plane yet it
combat capability
The rivets were not "mild steel". That would have created a host of problems, not to mention increasing the weight of the aircraft. Those rivets were made from a precipitation-hardening aluminum alloy, and were kept frozen until they were used to keep them soft. This simple observation casts doubt on any other factual assertion made here.
This is not the original narration or the full documentary. The original documentary correctly identifies the rivets as Duralumin.
Genius design.
We need this aircraft with 21C technology and fitted as a bachelor pad. Bay windows of course.
:)
Great video, thanks. From this Canadian.
I just read a book about the RAAF and US minelaying operations in SW Pacific. Very interesting little known story and crucial to MacArthurs strategy.
I had an uncle who flew the Cat in WW 2.
@rickseeman1 So did Emory! I bet they knew each other!
Didnt know it used fabric wings and frozen rivets. It was great plane but the PBM was a much better design and was produced in greater numbers.
Actually, there were around 1,300 PBM's built, and over 3,000 Catalinas. But yeah, I also consider the PBM a superior design and I wish it was easier to find in kit form. :/
It was NOT designed as a bomber. It was too slow to escape interception and too lightly (and awkwardly) armed to effectively defend itself when intercepted. Hardly the traits of an aircraft "designed as a bomber"! It was designed as a patrol aircraft (perhaps even "patrol-utility" if such a thing existed...Grumman Duck perhaps...). Yes, it could carry bombs or torpedoes for night time attack and anti-shipping, anti-sub operations... in areas where no aerial opposition was to be expected (even then their slow speed made them vulnerable to AA). Using your criteria, one could just as easily say that it had been designed as a search and rescue aircraft due to the numbers of downed pilots and stranded troops that it ferried out of harm's way. Was it a useful and versatile aircraft? Damned right! Reliable? Well, some are still flying today and post-war, they were EVERYWHERE doing damned near EVERYTHING.
It is a patrol aircraft in all their terms... any MPA is slow and has very little oportunity against a fighter... it happened in the past with Catalina, with P3 Orion, P8 Poseidon... you name it...
But all of them had very impressive technology for their time and were more than able to chase submarines. Hell, i think if catalina were remotorized with Turboprops and some design changes, they could be valid MPA for modern day, since the main needs of such aircrafts are a pretty good radar and technology inside anyway
PBY literally means Patrol Bomber, Consolidated. So it is a bomber. It was never meant to go up against real fighter defenses. So yeah, it's a bomber. Even with only two bomb racks for one bomb each.
Good
Bob Hope had to fly one down with the USO when the pilot had a heart attack. easy-peezy according to him.
wish they still made them this way
no.. your right.. this aint no guanli!!.. but they sure could have took some pointers from this vid!!! thanks..
Thanks!
Mild steel rivets with aluminum skin? Seems to me like a recipe for massive differential metal corrosion...especially in a salt-water environment.
I believe the coat the whole plane in a chromate primer that is very rust resistant but I may be wrong.
Yeah, I'm sure they did as zinc chromate primer was used extensively back then--just as it was when I got into aircraft maintenance in the 1980s. But I wouldn't think the primer would get between the rivets and the skin--they'd have to spray the skins before applying the rivets (and also coat the rivets) to have any hope of that, and there are clearly shots of the bare metal fuselage in the video here (and in other places I've seen). So the differential metal corrosion would happen under the primer, is what I'm saying.
I was able to find a copy of the PBY operating manual online, and there is definite mention of aluminum skins in it. But I haven't yet found any mention of rivet material in there however.
I saw a documentary on it and the paint is applied in a totally dust free zone. Plus the rivets are put on before painting and they are actually put in a freezer until they are installed to ensure a very tight fit. I don't think any paint will get under that.
Right--I saw that as well. I seriously doubt they are using mild steel rivets, unless they really didn't care about longevity. If the anticipated lifespan of the aircraft is predicted to be months or a few years at most, then my guess is that they really didn't care that much if there was a bit of corrosion. Otherwise, the video likely just mis-states the material. I believe they had aluminum rivets back in those days, so it's certainly possible they could have been used in these aircraft. When I was in Aircraft Mechanic's school in the early 80s, we had a few instructors who had been mechanics in the military in WWII. I cannot recall one of them ever mentioning the use of steel rivet in aluminum skin, but I suppose I might just be remembering it incorrectly.
Another thing--given the number of rivets in the airframes back in those days, the weight differential between steel and aluminum rivets would likely have been significant. Imagine how many rivets got used in something like a B-29 for instance!
So I have my doubts about the material as mentioned in the video, but I'll keep nosing around the Internet a bit. Maybe I can come up with something else.
@@bluehornet6752 remember when they built these they didn't exspect them to last for very long because of the war. Surely not for 75 yrs. Aluminium rivets would have sheared off with the pounding of take offs and landings thats why they used mild steel rivets for the added strength.