I Made some slight creative changes to the thumbnail and video editing, hope you like it :) F.A.Q Section 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: 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. Q: Will you include video footage in your videos, or just photos? A: Video footage is very expensive to licence, if I can find footage in the public domain I will try to use it, but a lot of it is hoarded by licencing studies (British Pathe, Periscope films etc). In the future I may be able to afford clips :) Q: Why do you sometimes feature images/screenshots from flight simulators? A: Sometimes there are not a lot of photos available for certain aircraft, so I substitute this with digital images that are as accurate as possible. Feel free to leave you questions below - I may not be able to answer all of them, but I will keep my eyes open :)
I found out from a video about the Battle of Britain including, (of course), the Spitfire/Hurricane pilots that the North American T6 Texan was used by the RAF as an advanced trainer for those pilots. There seems to be almost no UA-cam content about the T6 Texan itself
I think you can't talk about the P-36 without talking about how well they did in Finnish hands and for an otherwise good video well I'd say its the lone failing
for an already obsolete plane, the fact that they were still able to not only take on superior fighters in larger numbers than the P36 but was able to secure kills and damage to those superior fighters shows that they could have been good but was simply superseded by newer fighters
The P-36 had a very respectable KDR against "superior" aircraft in the Battle of France, especially considering it was flown at a disadvantage most of the time.
@@petesheppard1709 Well the part I find funny is that the prototype with the Allison V-1710 was "too expensive" and yet that was exactly what the P-40 was. About the only difference between them was the cockpit placement and the undercarriage.
One of my favorite WW2 fighters. The one displayed at the Museum of the United States Air Force depicts Lt. Philip Rasmussen climbing into his P-36 during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. He was wearing his striped pajamas, having been awakened by the Japanese bombs. That was him shown at 7:33.
I am always amazed at the Finnish pilot's ability to produce outstanding results using what many considered mediocre obsolete aircraft (P-36, Buffalos, Fokker D-21).
The Suomi, ( Finns) were wizards of fighting against the odds. this plane and buffalo, tho oft maligned in Finnish hands and with Finnish re tooling both airframes were astonishingly effective. Take note Ukraine of the tactics of the winter war
@@LouAlvis With the Buffalo, the Finns stripped the aircraft of equipment that was meaningful for a carrier based aircraft but useless in their environment. The lightened aircraft was then better able to fight the lesser trained Soviet pilots.
It has always impressed me how Curtis basically took a sound airframe, altered the geometry to fit an Alison V12 and morphed the P36 into the P40 which arguably became one of the most robust fighters ever built. The P40 was to my knowledge the only single-seat fighter capable of high speed turns without damage to the wing spar, something the Spitfire and Zero could not do.
Curtiss had an early turn at it with the P-37, whose cockpit was far back to make room for the Allison and a bulky early supercharger. The pilot couldn't see ahead on the ground and the cockpit got very hot. But they did get more speed out of the airplane. The Army took a test squadron of P-37s, and development continued.
The P47 had an even stronger wing, it had 2 spars in it with each one strong enough to do the job itself. That's why you can see photos of a P47 that came back from a ground attack mission with the top 3 feet of a telephone pole imbedded in the leading edge of it's right wing, the P40's wing was stronger than the P51's and other fighter's but even it would have had it's wing ripped off clipping the top of a telephone pole at 300 MPH. The P47 had the strongest of everything of any fighter, that's why it's fat ass weighed 6 tons even without bombs strapped on it.
On first encountering Focke Wulf 190s, RAF pilots were told they were probably P36s from the French delivery now being used by the Luftwaffe. The pilots reply was ' really, any chance we could get some '!
"A Domestic Failure That Became An International Success" That's basically almost every Curtiss-Wright planes during this era, save for some oddballs like SB2C or XP-55 that were just a failure.
@@Zawmbbeh The XP-55 was designed to be faster than any fighters at that time, as indicated by its sweep wings. However, the engine is not strong enough to harness the sweep wings' potential except in a dive. Thus making its top level speed slightly slower than most of the frontline fighters by the time it rolled out in 1944. However, the XP-55's worst problem is its stability and controllability issue. While the plane is quite manoverable at high speeds, it suffers from uncontrollability issue in a dive as well as unable to do vertical manovers (as doing so has a risk of stalling it). In fact, 2 out of 3 prototypes crashed due to both of the aforementioned issue before the army cancelled the project and put the remaining aircraft into a museum.
Immensely enjoyable! Anything with a radial engine really turns my crank. Especially the beloved P&W 1830, an engine I was still happily rebuilding into the 1980's.
Always loved this warplane. Love the lines the looks and just everything. A video on Sikorsky P-35 would be cool. I use to hate it but as I grew up and read more I realize it wasn't a terrible fighter just out dated and caught on the ground alot. But in the hands of the Fins it did ok.
I agree with you on both. But the P-35 was built by Seversky, not Sikorsky. It's designer, Alexander Kartveli, later went to Republic and designed the P-47. Amazing to consider that the P-35 first flew the same year as the Messerschmitt Bf-109 and the Hawker Hurricane. What a difference. Shows that the US (an ardently neutral and isolationist nation) was way behind in fighter design at that time.
@@mikearmstrong8483 Agree with your points. I'd add that the US, while far behind everyone else during the late 1930's up until 1941 or so, caught up very quickly. The Buffalo was a truly dire aircraft (except for the Finns who used it against really lousy Russian planes at the outset of their war), but the Grumman F4F Wildcat became the first real fighter the Americans had. After that, the Mustang, Corsair, and the P-47 (my personal favorite) took over. As for the P-36, it was outdated by the start of the war, but I always liked the way it looked. It just needed a more powerful engine, along with armor and upgraded firepower. Even without the latter two, had the engine been stronger, it could have become a much better fighter in the hands of the US Armed Forces. But, as with all things, its relative failure paved the way for better planes.
It was just a god awful time to be a designer, you'd finish Friday and then first thing Monday morning you'd have to bin last week's work because things had moved on🙁
On it's maiden flight, the Northrup 3A took off, headed over the Pacific, and promptly disappeared. That is actually wild. If that happened today it would be front page news. The military industrial complex of the time just considered it a write off.
@@cymond" 30 July The prototype Northrop 3A, (XP-948) c/n 44,[13] intended for the 1935 U.S. Army Air Corps competition for a new single-seat fighter, is lost over Santa Monica Bay, California, out of Jack Northrop Field, Hawthorne, California, during spin stall trials. Pilot killed.[14] No trace of the pilot, 1st Lt. Frank Scare,[15] or wreckage was found. Design rights sold in 1936 to Vought, becoming the V-141."
Some modifications in finland. "The aircraft purchased in Finland were originally armed with four or six 7.5 mm machine guns, but in 1942-1943 the State Aircraft Factory replaced the machine guns with one or two 12.7 mm Colt machine guns and installed two 7.7 mm Browning machine guns on each wing. Some 12.7 mm Berez UB war machine guns or LKk / 42 machine guns developed in Finland on the basis of the Colt machine gun were also fitted to some aircraft. The German Revi 3D or C / 12D reflector sight or a copy made by Vaisala in Finland was installed on the machines. Bomb hangers and light bomb tanks were removed as unnecessary. In December 1943, seat armor was ordered to be removed because bullets up to 7.7 mm fired at close range would pass through them." wikipedia. translated from finnish. Engines was changed to Twin Wasp, because lack of spare parts. Performance was good compared to many others fighters.
The Chinese Hawks suffered severely from the lack of an effective early warning system. At the time, this meant ground observers with a reliable telephone system, although radios were good enough and small enough to be possible. The lack of warning and ground control mean that it was hard for the Chinese Hawks to make intercepts. They seldom had enough time to take off, climb, and fly to the bombers before the bombers hit their target. Even if they had enough time, they were groping around trying to find the Japanese with no help--a radically different situation from the RAF over southern England. Imagine if the Spitfires had been going into battle with no one guiding them to the Nazi bomber formations. Late takeoffs also meant that they were far more likely to find Japanese fighters diving on them from above, which is a bad situation for anyone.
There were two basic types for foreign sales, most sold to China didn’t have retractable landing gear which was a slower version. French and British sales were with retractable landing gear. After the initial attack on Hawaii, the P-36’s weren’t destroyed. “Gabby” Gabreski of P-47 fame flew patrols after the initial raid but didn’t sight any enemy aircraft.
That lack of early warning and ground control was the same problem the RAF & Commonwealth Air Forces had in Malaya & Singapore in 1941/42. Having the Buffalo as the main fighter didn’t help matters.
@@michaeltelson9798 The most common Japanese fighter in the area at the time, the Ki-27, was fairly comparable to the Hawk 75M in many respects, the difference was in pilot skill (both training and experience) and doctrine, as Japan had been building their air doctrine since before World War I whereas China was a bit too busy collapsing into feuding warlords to even have an air force for a while. Better stuff like the A6M and Ki-43 didn't begin to appear until 1940 and 1941 respectively (and in the former case actually wasn't very common in the CBI Theater, most reported sightings of A6Ms were really Ki-43s, although in some ways the Ki-43 was the more dangerous opponent when flown by a skilled pilot).
I enjoyed that you included a little bit about some of the survivors I wish more historians would do that with aircraft and add a little history about each aircraft. It would’ve been nice if you could have mentioned a few more of the survivors.
Considering the fact that it led to the P40 and the various forces that used it, the P36 did ok. The weirdest thing was the vichy French P36 fighting Wildcats.
With enough wing area to carry a decent load of bombs. And many attested to the strength and ability to absorb damage. The P40 was there in numbers when it was desperately needed. The inline engine added enough speed to keep it somewhat competative.
The weirdest thing was the claim by French that they scored first allied air victory... How you can score air victory when you pretending during september 1939 campaign that you are not an ally of Poland and that you have no soldiers, tank or planes to actualy help Poland?! At the morning of 1 september 1939 Polish pilot W. Gnyś scored first allied air victory in P.11c.... P-36 max speed was 150% of P.11c speed... So French were working hard to claim that they were not able to do anythung when Poland claimed over 100 air victories in september 1939.
@@Bialy_1 Learn something about history before making stupid comments. Poland promised that they will conduct organised defense for 2-3 months. Do you remember what happened? After merely two weeks our defence failed and France was forced to cancel their offensive. But nice try with repeating old and debunked myths.
@@Bialy_1 Another stupid nationalist comment First is not the French that claim anything is the documentary, I think that the french air victory was the first one on the western front because even before the declaration of war there was air missions on both sides in the western front...surprise... Do you know what General Mobilization is ? Do you know it took at least two to four weeks for the french army to totally mobilize and take civilians trucks and horses for their logistics ? A part from that everybody knew, even the Poles, that the French didn't want another ''all out offensives'' like the bloody ones in WW1 since the construction of the Maginot Line and they have a defensive mentality. Still even not fully mobilized they did make an offensive in the Saar. A part from that Poland make everything to ignore their old post WW1 alliances until the german wolf was a the frontiers in 1939...
Thanks for a very informative video! To my eye, the Curtiss 75 was the best-looking fighter of the '30s; I'm glad to learn its history was a bit more than just another 'forgotten fighter'.
I recall reading about p40 v mustang in a conversation on manuverability, and the unexpected comment was the p40 held the edge, while the mustang had the HP and speed. So we learn, the p40 was not obsolete, just saddled with inferior supercharger situation, brought on by US Army idiots who were not engine/hp freaks and did not fully appreciate the supercharging/ horsepower relationships. Same problem with the P39 too. For both of those models, they should have just gone turbo as the p47 did.
@@bradcampbell7253 Look at how the turbos fill the booms behind the engines. Also, cooling ducts were routed along the wing leading edges in early models; later modified to all fuel tanks to be added there.
@@bradcampbell7253 P-40 was no match aerodynamically for the P-51, even with the same Allison engine the early P-51 could reach nearly 400mph. Mustang itself was not especially good in maneuverability with a distinctly average turn rate and a relatively poor rate of climb, however the P-51 had a decent roll rate and very good control at high speed which combined with the high top speed made it an effective dogfighter. Meanwhile the P-40 had a better rate of turn, similar roll rate and the same good control authority at high speed, however the P-40 had a lot more drag and would never have been able to achieve the same performance even with a 2 stage supercharged Merlin like the P-51. When you factor in the range difference P-51 was overall a much better aircraft.
Just a piece of related trivia. Claire Chennault went to China to serve as Chiang Kai-shek's chief air advisor and commander of the American Volunteer Group (the Flying Tigers) early in the war (before the U.S. was even "officially" involved). Although the "Tigers" flew the P-40, Madam Chiang (Chiang Kai-shek's wife) presented Chennault with a P-36 Hawk as a gift. For the rest of his time in China he used that P-36 as his "personnel transportation" to visit the various bases under his command and all reports indicate he loved the plane!
Great video on P-36 / Hawk 75 development and use. Anticipate more of the story when your P-40 chapter outlines the developmental relationship and differences of the Curtis fighters.
I’m looking forward to your video on the Curtis P40…. You can see the influence the P36 had on it… I loved the paint scheme of the Flying Tigers. Great video as usual
To be fair the early P-40s (Hawk 81s) were almost just a P-36 Hawk with an Allison V1710 slapped onto it. Easily the best looking fighter of the entire Hawk line with its somewhat brute but still streamlined looking radiator.
I built this model as a kid, so nice hearing so much positive praise for it, I've often felt it got short shrift and I had No idea about any edge up it had over the Spitfire. Nice video
Finally. I have stumbled upon an aviation version of Drachinifel. A gentleman with knowledge and who can use the English language without making Mr Johnson turn in his grave. I have liked and subscribed. I'd share on the social media. But I don't have any of them. Perhaps I shall recommend this channel in my local Television Guide. ,🤔
Another great video- thanks! Curtis seems to have suffered from a lot of management and QC issues later in the war I hope you find time to cover these in your P40 video. Between remaining wedded to the p40 design way past its obsolescence to a noted dislike of making competitors designs (the P47). That said the p40 was rugged and in the field, capable of being pushed to the limit if you radically exceeded recomended power settings
Great video packed with information and context. Thank you for pointing out the two kills achieved at Pearl Harbor. Because so much emphasis is placed on discussion of fleet damage and the destruction of planes on the ground, it isnt really mentioned that some of the dispersed planes got airborne and shot down some of the attackers.
The usual Curtiss virtues: robust, physically tough, harmonious controls, and maneuverable. My great-uncle flew both this and the P-40 and said that both had some virtues difficult to quantify: cockpit comfort and (for the day) visibility, as well as imparting the sense that it would and could do, and withstand, anything asked of it. He also said that it was very handy vs Japanese planes that the P-40 would dive, fast, and RIGHT NOW. He preferred it to anything he flew but said he would not have though twice about having to fight in a P-36 early in the war. He flew numerous later fighter types (mostly Army, only F4F and F4U of the navy) but was only genuinely impressed by the F4U.
The Thai and Argentine Hawks are particularly interesting because of their armament. Possibly because of the Argentines, the Hawk was available with Madsen guns from rifle caliber, to heavy machine gun, to 20mm and 23mm autocannon in pods! The Argentine army used Madsens of many types, so their Hawks were armed with rife-caliber Madsens. In a very convoluted story, the Argentines ended up taking their 11.35mm tripod-mount Madsen heavy mchine guns, re-jigerring them, and mounting them in the noses of the Hawks (only one side of the nose could take a heavy gun, the other had to be rifle-caliber). Anyhow, the Argentines ended up with an unreasonably zippy heavy aircraft machine gun through a combination of skill and good luck. The Thais bought their Hawks with pod-mounted Madsen cannon, which made them probaby the most heavily-armed single seat fighters in the world at the time. However, the pods were so heavy that they degraded the performance of the Hawk so severely that the Thais removed them. They had the bad luck to end up fighting USAAF B-24s without their cannon pods, though at that point it hardly mattered.
Great video. Your scholarly attention to detail is much appreciated. How about videos on the Northrup A-17, the Dornier Do. 335, and the Heinkel He. 219? Also, a video on US Navy WW2 fighters in the European theater. I once read that US Navy pilots flew P51Cs during Operation Dragoon.
US escort carriers were involved, and the F6Fs not only provided fighter support but actively helped with naval bombardment and brought down German transport planes. the navy never used the P51, their variant was canceled in favor of other fighters
@@bostonrailfan2427 I know the Navy was involved which is why I'd like to see a video giving details. The Navy transitioned scout floatplane pilots to fly Spitfires in support of the Normandy invasion and they did the same thing in Operation Dragoon only with P51Cs, which were AAF hand-me-downs, and flown from ground bases.
I remember reading about a few aerial skirmishes transpired during the course of the brief French-Thai conflict in 1940/41, during which Thai Hawk 75As shot down a few Moraine Saulnier MS 406s.
It was a time when _obsolete_ meant a year or so old, and also meant it could kill you in an aerial engagement. Warplanes went from gaily painted, streamlined, and covered in heraldry to grimly functional things that looked every bit the weapon.
The P-40 was essentially a P-36 with an Allison engine. Specifically the P-40B and C models. Don Berlin actually designed the P-36 with a more powerful engine in mind. That engine was not available until Allison produced the V-1710-33.
Excellent documentary on the P36! Really great work! Thanks for taking the time to do this! Truly fascinating report on one of my favorite American fighters of all time!
a truly under appreciated fighter with a mere 1050 HP in the early versions you couldn't see the potential of the plane but add the 1200 HP Pratt & Whitney Double Wasp and suddenly you had a real combat plane. As the Germans found out over France and the Russians over Karelia.
And that only over the one model of the Spit. British probably kicking selves in Battle of Britain they sent them off. Production of any plane not keeping up. Fighters getting scarce. Luckily the Germans accidentally bombed London, British bombed Berlin and Hitler ordered the focus to change to bombing London instead of airfields and attacking British planes.
@@milferdjones2573 Actually production aircraft was not problem as they increased production throughout the Battle of Britain. It was the lack of pilots which was the problem. Germans were the ones with problems. Muddled thinking with their tactics and a marked lack of replacements were two of the biggest problems. Attacking London in daylight was a massive blunder as Me-109s could only support the bombers for more than 20 minutes before they has to leave. Many German fighter pilots ran out of fuel on the way home. And the Luftwaffe's military intelligence was useless. The Luftwaffe attacked one airfield claiming all three squadrons were wiped out on the ground. Not only were they not wiped out, they were in the air, one of the squadrons wiping out the bombers which did the attack.
@@milferdjones2573 The RAF never came close to running out of fighters in the BoB..it was PILOTS they needed. They got volunteers from the Commonwealth, including Americans who joined up by sneaking off to Canada..from various European nations, from the Fleet Air arm, from Army cooperation squadrons... anywhere they could. EDIT: Ha, I see I was beaten to that comment!
Do not believe in everything... For example French claims that they got first air victory in ww2...🤣 Władysław Gnyś on PZL P.11c scored first air victory by shoting down two German dorniers 6:30AM september 1, 1939...
This is probably my favorite WW2 fighter. I think it was just a little too early to be relevant, but as we have shown even later in the war it still had a decent record. I think it may have been written off a little too soon by the USAAC and RAF, it would have been interesting it see how it would have performed in those early operations
Any chance the "Stearman"/Kaydet biplane is in your queue? They are an interesting one in that a rather large number of them still fly to this day in airshows and such. Meaning they are in the range of 80-90 years old now. Edit: The fact that about 1000 of them are still flying also means that it could be easier to get free/cheap video footage from random people at airshows or annual Stearman fly-ins (I know there are ones in Illinois and Kansas every year at least), which you had noted is difficult to find in some cases due to needing to get special permissions and such. I'm sure some of the pilots would even love to share some videos they took if you asked them.
Loved your video very very nice you covered all the important points and you have a nice calming voice you did your research and you did it well very good video you made a subscriber out of me today
Rex’s hangar, I will know listen to you. When i hop on my xbox, to play war thunder. Your videos are that educational :) i love aerospace history, including space.
Even as a boy (that was A VERY LONG TIME AGO), I loved the Hawk series, and the P-36 was one of those “aéroplane” that caught one’s eye. How I would love to see a restored Hawk 75 in French markings flying over my house. I would be instantly transported to my younger self. A beautiful pursuit ship…..
Love the Heresy! Brits crow about the Spitfire in Battle of Britain yet it was the Hurricane that did the work. Spit was a wonderful plane but not the end all.
Thank You Rex I thoroughly enjoy you're series ....my Father flew WW II, Korea etc. and I love flying and I soloed as a civilian in 1982 I'm sure you know about the Nice film titled..... "Spitfire" done during the very early war years of WW II the movie is a Gem it portrays Mr Mitchell the Genius and creator of the Spitfire This being the Spitfire fighter Plane that saved England In the Battle of Britain ..... Leslie Howard aka Ashley Wilks from Gone With The Wind portrays Mitchell's struggle to produce a miracle knowing he is dying. The irony and reality was that German intelligence had been tipped off on Mr Howard's visit. To Spain and had his plane shot down killing Howard. Nazis were exposed by this Patriotic movie but took Revenge as a result.
A thought for a future video ! How about the US Navy 'blimps' used in WW2 ? Don't think I've ever seen a video on them - leastways not on the 'usual' aeroplane channels I watch.
This year 1935, the Messerschmitt 109, the Morane 405 and the Hawker Hurricane were also begining - just to have a global view of fighter-pursuit developments then. (It's said in some web pages that the Morane was outclassed by the Messerschmitt : as I know, only in speed, like the H75.)
In war thunder, I loved the p-36g, the one who had guns in the engine and 2 guns in each wing, used tracer bullets and destroyed a good bunch of planes
The astonishing similarity in lines between the Seversky P-35 and the Italian Reggiane Re-2000 would be an interesting study. Seversky had been selling his fighter abroad, with a big contract to neutral Sweden. The US Congress killed the deal [and all others like it] with the Neutrality Act of 1939. With the loss of revenue, the Seversky board of directors threw Seversky out and became Republic Aircraft. Swedes, stiffed out of a fighter wing, turned to Italy. Reggiane built a fighter for Sweden but also stole the better landing gear design from the P-36 Mohawk, and came up with the Re-2000 [radial powerplant], Re-2001 [DB601 inline] and Re-2002 divebomber [bigger radial]. An Re-2004 with a 24 cyl X-type motor was never built, but the Re-2005 ,,Veltro'' [DB605] was a winner, but came too little and too late. In the Western Hemisphere, Republic produced the P-43 Lancer, a marginal improvement over the 'passenger pigeon' of the P-35 -- but went big on the P-47 -- a worldbeater with an R2800 [previously considered a bomber engine]. Interesting to note that Re-2005s of the RSI could have been dogfighting USAAF Thunderbolts over Northern Italy. Alexander Kartvelli's legitimate offspring vs his stolen bastard design.
I believe I once heard a story that one of the designers of the Seversky P-35 returned to Italy as he got a job over at Reggiane. Not sure how accurate it is though. It's for sure not a 1 to 1 copy since the Reggiane 2000 looks much better than the P-35.
@@martijn9568 I had never heard of a designer defecting to Fascist Italy. Not impossible, I guess, but I'm sceptical. Alexander Kartvelli designed the aircraft. He stayed in the USA. He was not Italian, Kartvelli was born in Tblisi, Georgia in the Russian Empire. His name was originally Kartvelishvilli. Emigrated to the US in 1922. He later designed the Republic P-47, XF-12 Rainbow, F-84 Thunderjet, F-105 Thunderchief, and some later aerospace projects 10 years prior to NASA's Space Shuttle. With the ..Falco,'' Reggiane improved the lines and copied the P-36's Curtiss-Wright landing gear for a sleeker aerodynamic profile. But you can see Kartvelli's wing plan in the Guardsman, the Falco, Veltro and Thunderbolt.
Nifty little plane. Surely the Marines on Midway and the British in Singapore would have appreciated them over the Brewster Buffalo fighter they fought in.
It all depends on what equipment you put into the Buffalo. The Dutch Brewster B-339 Buffaloes seemed to get some relative succes with their Buffaloes in Southeast Asia. Most important of all their pilots didn't hate the plane compared to the British in Southeast Asia.
This reminds me of an artist named Rodriguez. He was a singer form Detroit who's songs fell on deaf ears in america, but sold out in South Africa and Australia. Guy got platinum in a country who doesn't speak his language.
Excellent job, I really enjoy hearing about the less famous, and less well-performing fighters of that era. I can't wait to watch the video you do about the P-40. In my opinion, if the US had only used the P-40 and the wildcat in the Pacific Theater, they still would have whipped Japanese. Because both aircraft could outfight the Zero, provided they used good tactics
Well until the later Japanese fighter came out. The George one of the best fighters of the war but thanks to horrible Japanese pilot training rate and skills given few Georges got pilots who could fight with them. But in hands of Japan's few ace pilots left one in a George attacked taking off by Crosiers took out several the rest running.
@@milferdjones2573 The only reason the Japanese rushed the later Franks and George fighters into use was as a reaction to the American Hellcats and Corsairs. The Japanese felt the Zero was superior to the P40 and Wildcat, and saw no need to diverge from it until the better US fighters came on the scene.
Great footage of P-36 Hawks wearing late interwar camouflage. You don't see that often, probably due to it not having been used for a very long time. Does anyone know a little bit more about this type of camouflage?
I am curious: more than once It Is said that Speed was not up ti expectations. Do you know by some source of this was due to too high a specification, to just an underpowered engine employed (though the 750 hp One was in fact low on Power tò achieve good resulta), or to an excessive drag produced by the fuselage and/or wing?
Aviation historians consider the P-36 Hawk a very good, mid-to-late 1930s peacetime fighter plane. It helped the U.S. Army Air Force usher in the age of the monoplane by being a competent, decent, straightforward fighter plane design. The P-36 had few, if any flaws, and proved relatively easy for novice fighter pilots. Events in the first two years of WW2 overtook the P-36, rendering it obsolescent, which was not the fault of Curtiss, nor the P-36 itself. Could the P-36 Hawk have been amenable to upgrading? Certainly the Spitfire and the Me-109 were the recipients of continual improvement, refinement and upgrading to the end of the war. The P-36 design was likely amenable to a degree of upgrading but not much more. The design would have soon reached the limits of its capabilities. Possibly more powerful engines could have been fitted. The armament could have been upgraded from one, .30 caliber machine gun and one, .50 caliber heavy machine gun to at least four, .50 caliber heavy machine guns. A P-36 Hawk capable of around 350 mph and armed with four. .50 cal. machine guns might have been competitive through 1943 before being overtaken by the better P-38, P-51A, P-51B/D, and P-47B/D/N. Remember that the Curtiss P-40 flew from the start of the war to the very end, albeit in much smaller numbers by war's end. But the USAAF was not interested in an improved P-36. The USAAF placed its bets on the Hawk's successor, the inline, Allison engine P-40B Tomahawk. The P-40B offered a much higher top speed and heavier armament of, four, .30 caliber machine guns, and, two, .50 caliber heavy machine guns. The Finns purchased a few P-36 Hawks and upgraded the armament to four, rifle caliber machine guns. Reputedly there was an attempt to mount six, rifle caliber machine guns. The Finns employed the P-36 effectively against the Soviet Red Air Force into 1944. The Finns were compelled to withdraw the P-36 sometime in 1944 as improved Soviet fighter planes clearly outmatched the P-36.
Interestingly, the P-47 Jug had the same design, but was a much bigger aircraft with a much bigger, more advanced engine--and 8 .50 cal. machine guns and ability to carry rockets, napalm and bombs.
![Polikarpov I-16 "Ishak" | The Revolutionary Russian Fighter [Aircraft Overview #12]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KD0SYy-stt4/mqdefault.jpg)
![Polikarpov I-16 "Ishak" | The Revolutionary Russian Fighter [Aircraft Overview #12]](/img/tr.png)
![An Icon Of The US Army Air Corps | Boeing P-26 'Peashooter' [Aircraft Overview #20]](/img/n.gif)
I Made some slight creative changes to the thumbnail and video editing, hope you like it :)
F.A.Q Section
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: 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.
Q: Will you include video footage in your videos, or just photos?
A: Video footage is very expensive to licence, if I can find footage in the public domain I will try to use it, but a lot of it is hoarded by licencing studies (British Pathe, Periscope films etc). In the future I may be able to afford clips :)
Q: Why do you sometimes feature images/screenshots from flight simulators?
A: Sometimes there are not a lot of photos available for certain aircraft, so I substitute this with digital images that are as accurate as possible.
Feel free to leave you questions below - I may not be able to answer all of them, but I will keep my eyes open :)
Please take look at favorite aircraft the fw190 a1-a5 cause it just like me heavy and not very maneuverable but fast cant give a hit and take hit
I like the new thumbnail! Very clean :)
Another awesome video! How about one on the Fiat CR.20?
I found out from a video about the Battle of Britain including, (of course), the Spitfire/Hurricane pilots that the North American T6 Texan was used by the RAF as an advanced trainer for those pilots. There seems to be almost no UA-cam content about the T6 Texan itself
I think you can't talk about the P-36 without talking about how well they did in Finnish hands and for an otherwise good video well I'd say its the lone failing
for an already obsolete plane, the fact that they were still able to not only take on superior fighters in larger numbers than the P36 but was able to secure kills and damage to those superior fighters shows that they could have been good but was simply superseded by newer fighters
I've always thought, 'With a little more power...' but that's how we got the P-40, which IMO didn't look nearly as good.
The P-36 had a very respectable KDR against "superior" aircraft in the Battle of France, especially considering it was flown at a disadvantage most of the time.
@@petesheppard1709 Well the part I find funny is that the prototype with the Allison V-1710 was "too expensive" and yet that was exactly what the P-40 was. About the only difference between them was the cockpit placement and the undercarriage.
@@ImpendingJoker Good points
Technology was moving so fast in that period.
One of my favorite WW2 fighters. The one displayed at the Museum of the United States Air Force depicts Lt. Philip Rasmussen climbing into his P-36 during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. He was wearing his striped pajamas, having been awakened by the Japanese bombs. That was him shown at 7:33.
Lt Rasmussen retired in 1964 a Lt Colonel. It was reported that he was a much better Pilot without much diplomacy in his thinking.
You can get Rasmussen's P-36 on the game War Thunder lol
@@aaronsanborn4291 Yep, but it's exclusive to the Steam version of the game.
From the head volunteer during orientation, those pajamas were his actual pajamas donated to the museum lol (I work there).
@@z3r0_35 no it's not, you can get it on the gaijin store in the us starter pack.
I am always amazed at the Finnish pilot's ability to produce outstanding results using what many considered mediocre obsolete aircraft (P-36, Buffalos, Fokker D-21).
The Suomi, ( Finns) were wizards of fighting against the odds. this plane and buffalo, tho oft maligned in Finnish hands and with Finnish re tooling both airframes were astonishingly effective. Take note Ukraine of the tactics of the winter war
Those Finns - they're tough people and they don’t screw around.
@@LouAlvis With the Buffalo, the Finns stripped the aircraft of equipment that was meaningful for a carrier based aircraft but useless in their environment. The lightened aircraft was then better able to fight the lesser trained Soviet pilots.
@@LouAlvis it's because enemy's aircrafts were same obsolete like I-152, I-153 or I-16
@@Vladymir_Putin Incorrect.
It has always impressed me how Curtis basically took a sound airframe, altered the geometry to fit an Alison V12 and morphed the P36 into the P40 which arguably became one of the most robust fighters ever built. The P40 was to my knowledge the only single-seat fighter capable of high speed turns without damage to the wing spar, something the Spitfire and Zero could not do.
Curtiss had an early turn at it with the P-37, whose cockpit was far back to make room for the Allison and a bulky early supercharger. The pilot couldn't see ahead on the ground and the cockpit got very hot. But they did get more speed out of the airplane. The Army took a test squadron of P-37s, and development continued.
The P47 had an even stronger wing, it had 2 spars in it with each one strong enough to do the job itself.
That's why you can see photos of a P47 that came back from a ground attack mission with the top 3 feet of a telephone pole imbedded in the leading edge of it's right wing, the P40's wing was stronger than the P51's and other fighter's but even it would have had it's wing ripped off clipping the top of a telephone pole at 300 MPH.
The P47 had the strongest of everything of any fighter, that's why it's fat ass weighed 6 tons even without bombs strapped on it.
@@dukecraig2402 she's not fat, she's just big boned
She really was big boned.
So big boned she was designed around a monstrous radial engine.
The P38 could out turn everything for ONE high-speed turn ,mostly due to its power . Later many could do high speed turns W/O damage.
On first encountering Focke Wulf 190s, RAF pilots were told they were probably P36s from the French delivery now being used by the Luftwaffe. The pilots reply was ' really, any chance we could get some '!
"A Domestic Failure That Became An International Success"
That's basically almost every Curtiss-Wright planes during this era, save for some oddballs like SB2C or XP-55 that were just a failure.
@@Hartley_Hare That was because of how difficult it's handling characteristics are.
@@clawyraptor9029 in video games they are insane
I forget why the XP-55 failed. At least it looks pretty.
@@Zawmbbeh The XP-55 was designed to be faster than any fighters at that time, as indicated by its sweep wings. However, the engine is not strong enough to harness the sweep wings' potential except in a dive. Thus making its top level speed slightly slower than most of the frontline fighters by the time it rolled out in 1944.
However, the XP-55's worst problem is its stability and controllability issue. While the plane is quite manoverable at high speeds, it suffers from uncontrollability issue in a dive as well as unable to do vertical manovers (as doing so has a risk of stalling it). In fact, 2 out of 3 prototypes crashed due to both of the aforementioned issue before the army cancelled the project and put the remaining aircraft into a museum.
@@kringe700 that's a shame, but looking at the design i can understand why it would be unstable.
Immensely enjoyable! Anything with a radial engine really turns my crank. Especially the beloved P&W 1830, an engine I was still happily rebuilding into the 1980's.
Always loved this warplane. Love the lines the looks and just everything. A video on Sikorsky P-35 would be cool. I use to hate it but as I grew up and read more I realize it wasn't a terrible fighter just out dated and caught on the ground alot. But in the hands of the Fins it did ok.
I agree with you on both. But the P-35 was built by Seversky, not Sikorsky. It's designer, Alexander Kartveli, later went to Republic and designed the P-47.
Amazing to consider that the P-35 first flew the same year as the Messerschmitt Bf-109 and the Hawker Hurricane. What a difference. Shows that the US (an ardently neutral and isolationist nation) was way behind in fighter design at that time.
@@mikearmstrong8483 I forgot how to spell his name lol. But yeah we were behind what was being built in Europe and in Japan. But we caught up. Lol
@@mikearmstrong8483 Agree with your points. I'd add that the US, while far behind everyone else during the late 1930's up until 1941 or so, caught up very quickly. The Buffalo was a truly dire aircraft (except for the Finns who used it against really lousy Russian planes at the outset of their war), but the Grumman F4F Wildcat became the first real fighter the Americans had. After that, the Mustang, Corsair, and the P-47 (my personal favorite) took over.
As for the P-36, it was outdated by the start of the war, but I always liked the way it looked. It just needed a more powerful engine, along with armor and upgraded firepower. Even without the latter two, had the engine been stronger, it could have become a much better fighter in the hands of the US Armed Forces. But, as with all things, its relative failure paved the way for better planes.
I just like the "look" of this plane.
It was just a god awful time to be a designer, you'd finish Friday and then first thing Monday morning you'd have to bin last week's work because things had moved on🙁
On it's maiden flight, the Northrup 3A took off, headed over the Pacific, and promptly disappeared. That is actually wild. If that happened today it would be front page news. The military industrial complex of the time just considered it a write off.
I'm curious about the story there.
planes disappeared all the time when crossing the large oceans.. even today.. that wont make any news
@@cymond" 30 July
The prototype Northrop 3A, (XP-948) c/n 44,[13] intended for the 1935 U.S. Army Air Corps competition for a new single-seat fighter, is lost over Santa Monica Bay, California, out of Jack Northrop Field, Hawthorne, California, during spin stall trials. Pilot killed.[14] No trace of the pilot, 1st Lt. Frank Scare,[15] or wreckage was found. Design rights sold in 1936 to Vought, becoming the V-141."
Some modifications in finland. "The aircraft purchased in Finland were originally armed with four or six 7.5 mm machine guns, but in 1942-1943 the State Aircraft Factory replaced the machine guns with one or two 12.7 mm Colt machine guns and installed two 7.7 mm Browning machine guns on each wing. Some 12.7 mm Berez UB war machine guns or LKk / 42 machine guns developed in Finland on the basis of the Colt machine gun were also fitted to some aircraft. The German Revi 3D or C / 12D reflector sight or a copy made by Vaisala in Finland was installed on the machines.
Bomb hangers and light bomb tanks were removed as unnecessary. In December 1943, seat armor was ordered to be removed because bullets up to 7.7 mm fired at close range would pass through them." wikipedia. translated from finnish.
Engines was changed to Twin Wasp, because lack of spare parts. Performance was good compared to many others fighters.
The Chinese Hawks suffered severely from the lack of an effective early warning system. At the time, this meant ground observers with a reliable telephone system, although radios were good enough and small enough to be possible.
The lack of warning and ground control mean that it was hard for the Chinese Hawks to make intercepts. They seldom had enough time to take off, climb, and fly to the bombers before the bombers hit their target. Even if they had enough time, they were groping around trying to find the Japanese with no help--a radically different situation from the RAF over southern England. Imagine if the Spitfires had been going into battle with no one guiding them to the Nazi bomber formations.
Late takeoffs also meant that they were far more likely to find Japanese fighters diving on them from above, which is a bad situation for anyone.
There were two basic types for foreign sales, most sold to China didn’t have retractable landing gear which was a slower version. French and British sales were with retractable landing gear.
After the initial attack on Hawaii, the P-36’s weren’t destroyed. “Gabby” Gabreski of P-47 fame flew patrols after the initial raid but didn’t sight any enemy aircraft.
@@michaeltelson9798 Ummm, not sure why there's discussion of the P-35 in a reply to my post. 🤔
That lack of early warning and ground control was the same problem the RAF & Commonwealth Air Forces had in Malaya & Singapore in 1941/42. Having the Buffalo as the main fighter didn’t help matters.
@@michaeltelson9798 The most common Japanese fighter in the area at the time, the Ki-27, was fairly comparable to the Hawk 75M in many respects, the difference was in pilot skill (both training and experience) and doctrine, as Japan had been building their air doctrine since before World War I whereas China was a bit too busy collapsing into feuding warlords to even have an air force for a while. Better stuff like the A6M and Ki-43 didn't begin to appear until 1940 and 1941 respectively (and in the former case actually wasn't very common in the CBI Theater, most reported sightings of A6Ms were really Ki-43s, although in some ways the Ki-43 was the more dangerous opponent when flown by a skilled pilot).
An early warning system using radios was developed later and was very useful in making the Flying Tigers (AVG) an effective force.
I enjoyed that you included a little bit about some of the survivors I wish more historians would do that with aircraft and add a little history about each aircraft. It would’ve been nice if you could have mentioned a few more of the survivors.
Considering the fact that it led to the P40 and the various forces that used it, the P36 did ok. The weirdest thing was the vichy French P36 fighting Wildcats.
The P-40 was essentially a P-36 fitted with the Allison 1710 V-12.
With enough wing area to carry a decent load of bombs. And many attested to the strength and ability to absorb damage. The P40 was there in numbers when it was desperately needed. The inline engine added enough speed to keep it somewhat competative.
The weirdest thing was the claim by French that they scored first allied air victory...
How you can score air victory when you pretending during september 1939 campaign that you are not an ally of Poland and that you have no soldiers, tank or planes to actualy help Poland?!
At the morning of 1 september 1939 Polish pilot W. Gnyś scored first allied air victory in P.11c.... P-36 max speed was 150% of P.11c speed... So French were working hard to claim that they were not able to do anythung when Poland claimed over 100 air victories in september 1939.
@@Bialy_1 Learn something about history before making stupid comments. Poland promised that they will conduct organised defense for 2-3 months. Do you remember what happened? After merely two weeks our defence failed and France was forced to cancel their offensive.
But nice try with repeating old and debunked myths.
@@Bialy_1 Another stupid nationalist comment First is not the French that claim anything is the documentary, I think that the french air victory was the first one on the western front because even before the declaration of war there was air missions on both sides in the western front...surprise...
Do you know what General Mobilization is ? Do you know it took at least two to four weeks for the french army to totally mobilize and take civilians trucks and horses for their logistics ? A part from that everybody knew, even the Poles, that the French didn't want another ''all out offensives'' like the bloody ones in WW1 since the construction of the Maginot Line and they have a defensive mentality. Still even not fully mobilized they did make an offensive in the Saar. A part from that Poland make everything to ignore their old post WW1 alliances until the german wolf was a the frontiers in 1939...
Love it! I asked for the P-36 and you delivered, a truly underrated aircraft with real chops
Thanks for a very informative video! To my eye, the Curtiss 75 was the best-looking fighter of the '30s; I'm glad to learn its history was a bit more than just another 'forgotten fighter'.
I recall reading about p40 v mustang in a conversation on manuverability, and the unexpected comment was the p40 held the edge, while the mustang had the HP and speed. So we learn, the p40 was not obsolete, just saddled with inferior supercharger situation, brought on by US Army idiots who were not engine/hp freaks and did not fully appreciate the supercharging/ horsepower relationships. Same problem with the P39 too. For both of those models, they should have just gone turbo as the p47 did.
@@bradcampbell7253 An upgraded geared supercharger would have been more practical. A turbo is pretty bulky.
@@petesheppard1709 turbo is not bulky in a p38.
@@bradcampbell7253 Look at how the turbos fill the booms behind the engines. Also, cooling ducts were routed along the wing leading edges in early models; later modified to all fuel tanks to be added there.
@@bradcampbell7253 P-40 was no match aerodynamically for the P-51, even with the same Allison engine the early P-51 could reach nearly 400mph. Mustang itself was not especially good in maneuverability with a distinctly average turn rate and a relatively poor rate of climb, however the P-51 had a decent roll rate and very good control at high speed which combined with the high top speed made it an effective dogfighter.
Meanwhile the P-40 had a better rate of turn, similar roll rate and the same good control authority at high speed, however the P-40 had a lot more drag and would never have been able to achieve the same performance even with a 2 stage supercharged Merlin like the P-51. When you factor in the range difference P-51 was overall a much better aircraft.
Just a piece of related trivia. Claire Chennault went to China to serve as Chiang Kai-shek's chief air advisor and commander of the American Volunteer Group (the Flying Tigers) early in the war (before the U.S. was even "officially" involved). Although the "Tigers" flew the P-40, Madam Chiang (Chiang Kai-shek's wife) presented Chennault with a P-36 Hawk as a gift. For the rest of his time in China he used that P-36 as his "personnel transportation" to visit the various bases under his command and all reports indicate he loved the plane!
Great video on P-36 / Hawk 75 development and use. Anticipate more of the story when your P-40 chapter outlines the developmental relationship and differences of the Curtis fighters.
I’m looking forward to your video on the Curtis P40….
You can see the influence the P36 had on it…
I loved the paint scheme of the Flying Tigers.
Great video as usual
To be fair the early P-40s (Hawk 81s) were almost just a P-36 Hawk with an Allison V1710 slapped onto it.
Easily the best looking fighter of the entire Hawk line with its somewhat brute but still streamlined looking radiator.
Great video as usual, I always love the background you give to the plane and it’s development.
Best summary of the Hawk's history and use I have ever seen, Thanks for the great video.
I built this model as a kid, so nice hearing so much positive praise for it, I've often felt it got short shrift and I had No idea about any edge up it had over the Spitfire. Nice video
Finally. I have stumbled upon an aviation version of Drachinifel. A gentleman with knowledge and who can use the English language without making Mr Johnson turn in his grave.
I have liked and subscribed. I'd share on the social media. But I don't have any of them. Perhaps I shall recommend this channel in my local Television Guide. ,🤔
Another great video- thanks! Curtis seems to have suffered from a lot of management and QC issues later in the war I hope you find time to cover these in your P40 video. Between remaining wedded to the p40 design way past its obsolescence to a noted dislike of making competitors designs (the P47). That said the p40 was rugged and in the field, capable of being pushed to the limit if you radically exceeded recomended power settings
Very good!!! Glad to see more info on the Hawk. It did very well in hard times !!
Great video packed with information and context. Thank you for pointing out the two kills achieved at Pearl Harbor. Because so much emphasis is placed on discussion of fleet damage and the destruction of planes on the ground, it isnt really mentioned that some of the dispersed planes got airborne and shot down some of the attackers.
Awesome video. My introduction to the P-36 was when I was a kid I built the Monogram 1/72 P-36 wondering why it looked so much like a P-40.
The usual Curtiss virtues: robust, physically tough, harmonious controls, and maneuverable. My great-uncle flew both this and the P-40 and said that both had some virtues difficult to quantify: cockpit comfort and (for the day) visibility, as well as imparting the sense that it would and could do, and withstand, anything asked of it. He also said that it was very handy vs Japanese planes that the P-40 would dive, fast, and RIGHT NOW. He preferred it to anything he flew but said he would not have though twice about having to fight in a P-36 early in the war. He flew numerous later fighter types (mostly Army, only F4F and F4U of the navy) but was only genuinely impressed by the F4U.
A really beautiful Aircraft... under rated and under appreciated by most.
The Thai and Argentine Hawks are particularly interesting because of their armament. Possibly because of the Argentines, the Hawk was available with Madsen guns from rifle caliber, to heavy machine gun, to 20mm and 23mm autocannon in pods! The Argentine army used Madsens of many types, so their Hawks were armed with rife-caliber Madsens. In a very convoluted story, the Argentines ended up taking their 11.35mm tripod-mount Madsen heavy mchine guns, re-jigerring them, and mounting them in the noses of the Hawks (only one side of the nose could take a heavy gun, the other had to be rifle-caliber). Anyhow, the Argentines ended up with an unreasonably zippy heavy aircraft machine gun through a combination of skill and good luck.
The Thais bought their Hawks with pod-mounted Madsen cannon, which made them probaby the most heavily-armed single seat fighters in the world at the time. However, the pods were so heavy that they degraded the performance of the Hawk so severely that the Thais removed them. They had the bad luck to end up fighting USAAF B-24s without their cannon pods, though at that point it hardly mattered.
Thai Air Force used hawk 75n mostly during Franco-Thai wars tho
@@atskyrider1636 "Mostly" may be too strong. From the limited record, the total number of sorties were spread over a wide period.
Where on earth does Rex's hangar glean such encyclopaedic knowledge? Amazing and praiseworthy.
Very well presented.
Had no idea the P-36 saw service in so many countries.
Great video. Your scholarly attention to detail is much appreciated. How about videos on the Northrup A-17, the Dornier Do. 335, and the Heinkel He. 219? Also, a video on US Navy WW2 fighters in the European theater. I once read that US Navy pilots flew P51Cs during Operation Dragoon.
US escort carriers were involved, and the F6Fs not only provided fighter support but actively helped with naval bombardment and brought down German transport planes. the navy never used the P51, their variant was canceled in favor of other fighters
@@bostonrailfan2427 I know the Navy was involved which is why I'd like to see a video giving details. The Navy transitioned scout floatplane pilots to fly Spitfires in support of the Normandy invasion and they did the same thing in Operation Dragoon only with P51Cs, which were AAF hand-me-downs, and flown from ground bases.
Could you do a video on the Henkel he 219? I think it’s a extremely interesting plane and I would love to know more about it
I remember reading about a few aerial skirmishes transpired during the course of the brief French-Thai conflict in 1940/41, during which Thai Hawk 75As shot down a few Moraine Saulnier MS 406s.
Another great video mate.
It was a time when _obsolete_ meant a year or so old, and also meant it could kill you in an aerial engagement. Warplanes went from gaily painted, streamlined, and covered in heraldry to grimly functional things that looked every bit the weapon.
Its contemporaries were the ME-109, the Hurricane and the Spitfire. Only months between.
Loving these overview videos. Could you do one on the Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk?
The front wing view and the side view from cockpit to tail have great similarities to the P40
The P-40 was essentially a P-36 with an Allison engine. Specifically the P-40B and C models. Don Berlin actually designed the P-36 with a more powerful engine in mind. That engine was not available until Allison produced the V-1710-33.
Excellent documentary on the P36! Really great work! Thanks for taking the time to do this! Truly fascinating report on one of my favorite American fighters of all time!
EXCELLENT video and narration! Thanks Rex!! 👍🇦🇺
Love the more extensive content. Great vid on the Hawk.
a truly under appreciated fighter with a mere 1050 HP in the early versions you couldn't see the potential of the plane but add the 1200 HP Pratt & Whitney Double Wasp and suddenly you had a real combat plane. As the Germans found out over France and the Russians over Karelia.
Merlins used in Spitfire and Hurricane used in Battle of Britain made around 1000 bhp. German engines of the time were much the same.
Allready first model had top speed over 500km/h but I think it was not fully combat version as those Finland get didnt reach 500km/h.
@@Dave5843-d9m Inlines vs Radials much more drag on a radial engine
The P-36 may have had some advantages over the Spitfire. But getting out of trouble as fast as you got into in wins hands down.
And that only over the one model of the Spit.
British probably kicking selves in Battle of Britain they sent them off. Production of any plane not keeping up. Fighters getting scarce.
Luckily the Germans accidentally bombed London, British bombed Berlin and Hitler ordered the focus to change to bombing London instead of airfields and attacking British planes.
@@milferdjones2573 Actually production aircraft was not problem as they increased production throughout the Battle of Britain. It was the lack of pilots which was the problem.
Germans were the ones with problems. Muddled thinking with their tactics and a marked lack of replacements were two of the biggest problems. Attacking London in daylight was a massive blunder as Me-109s could only support the bombers for more than 20 minutes before they has to leave. Many German fighter pilots ran out of fuel on the way home.
And the Luftwaffe's military intelligence was useless. The Luftwaffe attacked one airfield claiming all three squadrons were wiped out on the ground. Not only were they not wiped out, they were in the air, one of the squadrons wiping out the bombers which did the attack.
@@milferdjones2573 The RAF never came close to running out of fighters in the BoB..it was PILOTS they needed. They got volunteers from the Commonwealth, including Americans who joined up by sneaking off to Canada..from various European nations, from the Fleet Air arm, from Army cooperation squadrons... anywhere they could. EDIT: Ha, I see I was beaten to that comment!
Brilliant and fascinating video. Great interesting narration. Good stuff.
I've been a student of ww2 aviation for decades and learned alot from this episode well done!
Do not believe in everything... For example French claims that they got first air victory in ww2...🤣
Władysław Gnyś on PZL P.11c scored first air victory by shoting down two German dorniers 6:30AM september 1, 1939...
And someone with nick "Rudy" should be aware of it... 🙃
This is probably my favorite WW2 fighter. I think it was just a little too early to be relevant, but as we have shown even later in the war it still had a decent record. I think it may have been written off a little too soon by the USAAC and RAF, it would have been interesting it see how it would have performed in those early operations
Any chance the "Stearman"/Kaydet biplane is in your queue? They are an interesting one in that a rather large number of them still fly to this day in airshows and such. Meaning they are in the range of 80-90 years old now.
Edit: The fact that about 1000 of them are still flying also means that it could be easier to get free/cheap video footage from random people at airshows or annual Stearman fly-ins (I know there are ones in Illinois and Kansas every year at least), which you had noted is difficult to find in some cases due to needing to get special permissions and such. I'm sure some of the pilots would even love to share some videos they took if you asked them.
That early silver P-40 @ 7:28 though... Gorgeous!
Hawk. Aircraft history thats fun! Bless this UA-cam artist.
Loved your video very very nice you covered all the important points and you have a nice calming voice you did your research and you did it well very good video you made a subscriber out of me today
Rex’s hangar, I will know listen to you. When i hop on my xbox, to play war thunder. Your videos are that educational :) i love aerospace history, including space.
Quite an illustrious histroy for an aircraft with hardly any recognition - until now. Very interesting.
Even as a boy (that was A VERY LONG TIME AGO), I loved the Hawk series, and the P-36 was one of those “aéroplane” that caught one’s eye. How I would love to see a restored Hawk 75 in French markings flying over my house. I would be instantly transported to my younger self. A beautiful pursuit ship…..
A masterpiece documentary. Loved it.
I always liked the clean classic lines of the P-36.
Another outstanding factual and entertaining video.
8:59 first time I see these "cow spots" camouflage patterns. Very interesting.
Reminds me of the packaging of Gateway computers in the late 1990's ^^
Nice job. Typical of all your videos, well done, well researched.
Thank You again.
Crazy that I'd never heard of this aircraft before
Love the Heresy!
Brits crow about the Spitfire in Battle of Britain yet it was the Hurricane that did the work.
Spit was a wonderful plane but not the end all.
It was a reasonably competitive plane. Good pilots and tactics make the difference and it was useful for many operators.
Another interwar gem. Thank you! Martin B-10 in queue???
Thank You Rex I thoroughly
enjoy you're series ....my Father flew WW II, Korea etc. and I love flying and I soloed as a civilian in 1982
I'm sure you know about the
Nice film titled..... "Spitfire" done during the very early
war years of WW II the movie is a Gem it portrays
Mr Mitchell the Genius and creator of the Spitfire This being the Spitfire fighter
Plane that saved England
In the Battle of Britain .....
Leslie Howard aka Ashley Wilks from Gone With The Wind portrays Mitchell's struggle to produce a miracle knowing
he is dying. The irony and reality was that German intelligence had been tipped off on Mr Howard's visit. To
Spain and had his plane shot down killing Howard.
Nazis were exposed by this
Patriotic movie but took
Revenge as a result.
The 50 Shades of Grey outro music... YES! LOVE IT
A thought for a future video !
How about the US Navy 'blimps' used in WW2 ?
Don't think I've ever seen a video on them - leastways not on the 'usual' aeroplane channels I watch.
I just saw this vid about USS Macon the other day from 'The History Guy'. ua-cam.com/video/U2h1NNpxcFM/v-deo.html
This year 1935, the Messerschmitt 109, the Morane 405 and the Hawker Hurricane were also begining - just to have a global view of fighter-pursuit developments then.
(It's said in some web pages that the Morane was outclassed by the Messerschmitt : as I know, only in speed, like the H75.)
Another great video. Thanks for sharing your hard work.
it's cool seeing a video on this plane. In warthunder it's one of my favorites to fly. The p36g in warthunder handles so nibley
In war thunder, I loved the p-36g, the one who had guns in the engine and 2 guns in each wing, used tracer bullets and destroyed a good bunch of planes
Early tiers where most of the interwar/early WW2 planes could be found are where I had most fun, the P36 and P40 were a source of much fun in game.
The astonishing similarity in lines between the Seversky P-35 and the Italian Reggiane Re-2000 would be an interesting study. Seversky had been selling his fighter abroad, with a big contract to neutral Sweden. The US Congress killed the deal [and all others like it] with the Neutrality Act of 1939. With the loss of revenue, the Seversky board of directors threw Seversky out and became Republic Aircraft. Swedes, stiffed out of a fighter wing, turned to Italy. Reggiane built a fighter for Sweden but also stole the better landing gear design from the P-36 Mohawk, and came up with the Re-2000 [radial powerplant], Re-2001 [DB601 inline] and Re-2002 divebomber [bigger radial]. An Re-2004 with a 24 cyl X-type motor was never built, but the Re-2005 ,,Veltro'' [DB605] was a winner, but came too little and too late. In the Western Hemisphere, Republic produced the P-43 Lancer, a marginal improvement over the 'passenger pigeon' of the P-35 -- but went big on the P-47 -- a worldbeater with an R2800 [previously considered a bomber engine]. Interesting to note that Re-2005s of the RSI could have been dogfighting USAAF Thunderbolts over Northern Italy. Alexander Kartvelli's legitimate offspring vs his stolen bastard design.
I believe I once heard a story that one of the designers of the Seversky P-35 returned to Italy as he got a job over at Reggiane. Not sure how accurate it is though. It's for sure not a 1 to 1 copy since the Reggiane 2000 looks much better than the P-35.
@@martijn9568 I had never heard of a designer defecting to Fascist Italy. Not impossible, I guess, but I'm sceptical. Alexander Kartvelli designed the aircraft. He stayed in the USA. He was not Italian, Kartvelli was born in Tblisi, Georgia in the Russian Empire. His name was originally Kartvelishvilli. Emigrated to the US in 1922. He later designed the Republic P-47, XF-12 Rainbow, F-84 Thunderjet, F-105 Thunderchief, and some later aerospace projects 10 years prior to NASA's Space Shuttle.
With the ..Falco,'' Reggiane improved the lines and copied the P-36's Curtiss-Wright landing gear for a sleeker aerodynamic profile.
But you can see Kartvelli's wing plan in the Guardsman, the Falco, Veltro and Thunderbolt.
Nifty little plane. Surely the Marines on Midway and the British in Singapore would have appreciated them over the Brewster Buffalo fighter they fought in.
It all depends on what equipment you put into the Buffalo. The Dutch Brewster B-339 Buffaloes seemed to get some relative succes with their Buffaloes in Southeast Asia. Most important of all their pilots didn't hate the plane compared to the British in Southeast Asia.
Absolutely fascinating! Thanks for this!
Great video Rex!
Very nice, most enjoyable. Thank you.
This reminds me of an artist named Rodriguez. He was a singer form Detroit who's songs fell on deaf ears in america, but sold out in South Africa and Australia. Guy got platinum in a country who doesn't speak his language.
Great video !1 Very informative. Thank you!!
🇧🇷 Great Video! here in Brazil we have a not flying model at the MUSAL (Air and Space Museum) in Rio de Janeiro
Excellent job, I really enjoy hearing about the less famous, and less well-performing fighters of that era. I can't wait to watch the video you do about the P-40. In my opinion, if the US had only used the P-40 and the wildcat in the Pacific Theater, they still would have whipped Japanese. Because both aircraft could outfight the Zero, provided they used good tactics
Well until the later Japanese fighter came out. The George one of the best fighters of the war but thanks to horrible Japanese pilot training rate and skills given few Georges got pilots who could fight with them. But in hands of Japan's few ace pilots left one in a George attacked taking off by Crosiers took out several the rest running.
P40 maybe. P36. No way.
@@milferdjones2573 The only reason the Japanese rushed the later Franks and George fighters into use was as a reaction to the American Hellcats and Corsairs.
The Japanese felt the Zero was superior to the P40 and Wildcat, and saw no need to diverge from it until the better US fighters came on the scene.
You can find a RTAF Hawk 75N at the Royal Thai Museum Don Mueang Bangkok. Managed to see it in person twice. A rare aircraft to find too
Excellent as always
Great video; great a/c selection 💙💙.
Mr . Curtiss residence & Flying School, is/ was 2 miles away in Hialeah, Miami Springs across the Miami River, is his former Home.
Love the obscure color schemes at 8:18
Great footage of P-36 Hawks wearing late interwar camouflage. You don't see that often, probably due to it not having been used for a very long time. Does anyone know a little bit more about this type of camouflage?
Are you talking about the war games camo? I think it was just experimental
Thanks for the interesting and entertaining content
Great vid, an excellent look at this plane.
I adore the P-36, especially the unpainted silver models. Absolutely gorgeous plane
it just a plane , try going out more instead of slobbering over model airplanes
I love your documentaries,
Definitely interested in a p40 warhawk video.
Great story! thanks muchly.
Awesome work Sir thank you
can wait for your p-40 vid its my favorite plane
8:59 Looks interesting camo. I wonder what the actual colours were.
Great video impressive stat's against MK1 Spit.
Sussu oli ihan hyvä lentokone suomen ilmavoimissa, tunnettuja ässiä oli Kyösti "Kössi" Karhila 13 pudotusta ja Kalevi "Kale" Tervo 15,5 pudotusta.
This was one of my favorite 1:72 scale models that I built when I was younger.
Same here, I think mine was a Monogram kit.
@@mbryson2899 I had the Monogram P-36 kit too, I had dog fights and strafed my bed room floor many times with that model.
I am curious: more than once It Is said that Speed was not up ti expectations. Do you know by some source of this was due to too high a specification, to just an underpowered engine employed (though the 750 hp One was in fact low on Power tò achieve good resulta), or to an excessive drag produced by the fuselage and/or wing?
Incredible. I never knew this much about it!
Aviation historians consider the P-36 Hawk a very good, mid-to-late 1930s peacetime fighter plane. It helped the U.S. Army Air Force usher in the age of the monoplane by being a competent, decent, straightforward fighter plane design. The P-36 had few, if any flaws, and proved relatively easy for novice fighter pilots.
Events in the first two years of WW2 overtook the P-36, rendering it obsolescent, which was not the fault of Curtiss, nor the P-36 itself.
Could the P-36 Hawk have been amenable to upgrading? Certainly the Spitfire and the Me-109 were the recipients of continual improvement, refinement and upgrading to the end of the war. The P-36 design was likely amenable to a degree of upgrading but not much more. The design would have soon reached the limits of its capabilities. Possibly more powerful engines could have been fitted. The armament could have been upgraded from one, .30 caliber machine gun and one, .50 caliber heavy machine gun to at least four, .50 caliber heavy machine guns. A P-36 Hawk capable of around 350 mph and armed with four. .50 cal. machine guns might have been competitive through 1943 before being overtaken by the better P-38, P-51A, P-51B/D, and P-47B/D/N. Remember that the Curtiss P-40 flew from the start of the war to the very end, albeit in much smaller numbers by war's end. But the USAAF was not interested in an improved P-36. The USAAF placed its bets on the Hawk's successor, the inline, Allison engine P-40B Tomahawk. The P-40B offered a much higher top speed and heavier armament of, four, .30 caliber machine guns, and, two, .50 caliber heavy machine guns.
The Finns purchased a few P-36 Hawks and upgraded the armament to four, rifle caliber machine guns. Reputedly there was an attempt to mount six, rifle caliber machine guns. The Finns employed the P-36 effectively against the Soviet Red Air Force into 1944. The Finns were compelled to withdraw the P-36 sometime in 1944 as improved Soviet fighter planes clearly outmatched the P-36.
Interestingly, the P-47 Jug had the same design, but was a much bigger aircraft with a much bigger, more advanced engine--and 8 .50 cal. machine guns and ability to carry rockets, napalm and bombs.