Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
A Plane So Bad It Was Removed From Service | Curtiss SO3C Seamew [Aircraft Overview #56]
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 сер 2024
- Today we're looking at the Curtiss SO3C Seamew, the plane that was designed to replace the SOC Seagul, but failed to do so. This was due to a poor choice in an experimental engine (a decision the US Navy made), and the change of aircraft design specifications post-evaluation (a decision which the US Navy also made). The result was a plane that was almost doomed to fail.
Want to join the community? Visit our Discord - / discord
Want to support the channel? I have a Patreon here - / rexshangar
***
Producing these videos is a hobby of mine - and apparently its now a full-time job too! I have a passion for history, and personally own a large collection of books, journals and other texts, and endeavor to do as much research as possible. However if there are any mistakes, please don't hesitate to reach out and correct anything :)
Sources:
Ginter.S (1999). The Curtiss SO3C - Naval Fighters number forty-seven.
BowersP.M (1979). Curtiss Aircraft 1907-1947.
![Japan's Failed Copycat Bombers | Mitsubishi Ki-1 & Ki-2 [Aircraft Overview #61]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/46bBkc5dmjw/mqdefault.jpg)
![Japan's Failed Copycat Bombers | Mitsubishi Ki-1 & Ki-2 [Aircraft Overview #61]](/img/tr.png)
![A Domestic Failure That Became An International Success | Curtiss P-36 Hawk [Aircraft Overview #33]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lTgY8za-2Xw/mqdefault.jpg)
![Italy's Weird & Wonderful Twin-Hull Flying Boats | Savoia-Marchetti S.55 [Aircraft Overview #39]](/img/n.gif)
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 :)
Hey Rex, great videos mate. I would love to see you do one on the Stuka
Hi Rex. It’s refreshing to actually see a good channel that talks about airplanes and doesn’t just state the facts and use obnoxious thumbnails (cough cough dark skies) but keep it up. I love your content
Talking of target planes, the De Havilland Queen Bee, a Moth Major with Tiger Moth wings used as what they called a radio controlled target drone, said to be the origin of the word 'drone' for a radio controlled flying plane. I think just one still exists converted to a piloted plane?
Fairchild Pilgrim Rex! Huge single engine aircraft. Makes an Otter look like a toy! See longer comment below. Thanks!
Could you eventually cover the f-104 supersonic lawn dart, it seems like it could be a neat topic for an odd looking airplane.
I was about to say that being replaced in service by the same aircraft that it was designed to replace is the ultimate ignominy, and then you said it wasn't even up to being used as a target tug... Alas, I suppose we learn from our mistakes!
They should have been the targets themselves
@@brownwrench I was just about to say, if not a target tug then a target drone.
"I suppose we learn from our mistakes"
One would have that hope.
Sadly, that is not often the case.
Similar story to the Fairey Albacore... designed to replace the Fairey Swordfish.
Smae thing happened with the Fairey Swordfish. Was meant to be replaced by the Fairey Albacore, but ended up serving longer than the latter.
Validation of the concept “if it looks right, it will fly right”….well this one didn’t look right.
To be fair the Supermarine Walrus looks like a child drew it and yet it served capably from '33 all the way to '58...
@@pavarottiaardvark3431 only the child that drew the Walrus also drew the Spitfire. 😊
The bv141 looked bad... and flew great.
@@jonathanklein383 Looked a lot better than the Christmas Bullet and worked a lot better as well, not to mention people who flew it don't go missing.
@@jonathanklein383 ….German engineering
I just imagine the salesman selling the Navy on the new engine sounding like a snake oil salesman. Says all the right stuff and answers questions with more questions to confuse the point!
Watch C-SPAN for a while.
Professional circle back psychobabble.
Not as bad as the viper that sold the Cow to the British!😂
The video said that changing the design requirement after production had started was one of the main causes.
So it seems the salesman didn't have to lie at all :)
I wonder if this was the same charlatan who sold the duff torpedoes to the US Navy, that BEUORD refused to admit were garbage
The US already had the OS2U Kingfisher all metal monoplane which flew a solid year before the Seamew. The Kingfisher had near identical performance characteristics except for 20% leas range. The Navy went on to build 1500 of them throughout the war.
Which leaves me wondering, why did they even bother with this program to replace the SOC at all? Just replace them with Kingfishers. Hell, the Seamew's competitor (the Vought XSO2U) was pretty much a Kingfisher with a higher-mounted wing and shorter struts to attach the float. And at least part of the reason for choosing the worse-performing Seamew was that Vought's production capacity was being taken up by the Kingfisher.
The idea seems to have been that the Kingfisher was for battleships and the Seamew would replace the SOC on cruisers. But the Kingfisher ended up operating on cruisers as well with no problem. Was it just that Curtiss didn't have enough work coming their way and this contract was to keep their factories running?
I'm eagerly awaiting Rexs coverage of the Kingfisher, had a soft spot for these planes ever since mounting a couple of them to the stern of Tamiyas USS Missouri back in the 90s!
Curtis was seen as shady. The SB2C was a disaster on roll out. The navy wanted to just cancel the Hell Diver because of it's bad performance but multi million dollar contracts were issued and higher ups forced the navy to take the unpopular plane into service.
After numerous fixes at way stations across the country the plane entered service with Curtis technicians actually on the carriers. When Hell Divers didn't return from missions and disappeared on non combat missions it was discovered that the wing latches could fail in flight. It was later discovered that Curtis knew about this flaw but stayed silent for fear that futher fixes would cost the company too much money.
That's not the worst part. Apparently the techs on board the carriers also knew about the possible death traps the planes were but said nothing to the men who flew them! Some CV skippers ordered the SB2Cs to be thrown overboard and used the F6F Hellcat as a fighter bomber.
I bring this up because the military viewed them this way. Curtis politiced there way into keep producing the P 40 for most of the war. The obsolete fighter was given away in lend lease along with other planes. They put profit above the lives of the men who flew their planes.
Curtis Sea Mew was just more of the same. Junk pushed on the armed services.
Let's be honest, the plane wasn't horrible, the engine forced on Curtis was. The airframe itself was mediocre, but far worse saw service. If it weren't for the engine it likely would have served solidly until tech advances obsoleted it.
The inverted V-12 engine concept just didn't pan out....
@@Hoopaball that's not entirely true: the Bf 109 had an inverted V12, and that worked great. There have been quite a few successful inverted V aero engines over the years: this particular one just wasn't one of them.
@@a.p.2356 good call. I meant *air cooled inverted V-12. However, for the US Navy at the time, it seems like the air cooled radial was King.
DeHavilland had air cooled inverted engines ,though not V12s.
@@Hoopaball Yeah, our aircraft engines of the time all lagged behind the rest of the industry. We Were putting up advanced airframes with power plants that had less energy than a retirement home.
The "Albacore syndrome" strikes again.
Basically, if you wanted to design a new plane to replace the old one, do not put an incredibly specific specifications on it (especially on budget), or it will be doomed from the start.
Yes! The F6F Hellcat was supposed to be an upgrade of the F4F Wildcat, but there were so many eventually they decided it was going to be a new airplane.
"Sea Cow" seems like the best name for the aircraft.
No the best name for this plane is the seamooo
@@abdyblanco4870 Perhaps Seapoo would be more appropriate....
better than flying coffin
You would have though they would have built the aircraft with an existing engine with the view to changing the engine once the new one had proven itself.
You would think that, but you don't argue with the people paying you to develop a plane, apparently. This debacle served to be a learning experience for the Navy in letting the manufacturers have enough wiggle room to actually fix potential issues. xD
What do they say about cooking for dinner parties? You only cook ONE new dish. The others should be ones that are tried and true.
Availability issues maybe
@@guaporeturns9472 True. But you would think they would have something they could use.
@@bigblue6917 Right? Surely something better than a largely untested AIR COOLED INVERTED V!! anything.. an Allison maybe?
6:31 "Powerplant: Questionable" lol, I love those little touches of humor
Experimental engine plus unproven design, both being governed by Navy specifications equals disaster.
Governed by a CHANGING Navy specification. You're right.
Throwing in my bid for an aircraft request: the Dornier DO-335. The pull-push prop configuration has always been fascinating to me, and it is one of the first large model kits I ever completed.
And this was next to the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver which was considered a bad plane at first and the Navy didnt even retire it.
I've read that one ship, upon learning of the removal of the Seamew from service, launched theirs from the catapults and sank them with gunfire.
2,800 views in 48 minutes! You're killing it guy! Keep 'em coming! Great job!
Yes!!!!! Such a unique airplane! I've got a few books on this weird bird, I'm so glad you've made this
Hi Rex, congratulations again for another attention riveting video, the Fairey Swordfish had overshadowed her replacement, the Albacore and Germany's Junkers 52/3 "Iron Annies" had continued to serve with distinction alongside her successors the Ju.252 and Ju.352.
These years were so formative, if only they knew what was coming in 37! Really cool video on a rare plane
You don't want to use your ailerons in a stall unless you don't mind spinning. You use your rudder to pick up your wing near the stall.
Thanks for the info...always liked this aircraft even though it was a failure. Can't wait for the SC 1/2 Seahawk.
Great vid Rex! A fascinating aircraft for sure. I love learning about prototype planes that didn't make the cut. Makes for interesting what-if scenarios.
I have a 1/48 model of this A/C in my display case. Consider it a tribute to a failed design. A couple of points. Some of your pictures show the Seamew embarked on the USS Biloxi (CL-80). One of those A/C bore the name "War Junk" on the left fuselage forward of the cockpit. Also, opening the observer's canopy in flight to deploy the rear gun played havoc with the lateral stability of the aircraft, because of disrupted airflow! I think the aircraft lasted two months on the ship. They were removed before it saw any combat.
That disrupted lateral stability was a design bonus. Instant evasive manuevors. Imagine being an aspiring Naval Aviator. And after getting your wings you get shoved into one of these.
this channel has become my new favorite when it comes to aviation. subscribed.
You've GOTTA give us Kingfisher and Seahawk videos to go with the Gull, Mew and Duck....
highly underrated planes…forgotten because of the bigger seaplanes that essentially oustered them
Glad you covered this type.
Thanks Rex great work Sir
Sea mew is another name for the common sea gull, just to make things even clearer haha. If you want do a vid about another, even more disastrous design, have a look at the Brewster Buccaneer. Especially if you've ever wondered what happened to Brewster...
Brewster's WW2 strike is a prime example of how not to run a company to the point I actively pray that people trying to restore one of those wretched aircraft fail
Look at what happened with Brewster-built Corsairs.
And here I was wondering if there was a D-mu between this and the (completely flightless) Emu.
Next on feed, Rex hangar, Brewster buffalos.
There is no such bird as a Common Sea Gull, there is however, a species called the Common Gull.
What a treat! Thanks for another seaplane video.
Interesting and thourough history report. Respect, Rex! Greetings from Germany
Nicely done carry on.
Took a guess at what would kill it as soon as new unproven engine was mentioned.
Air-cooled V12 engine? That sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Take a look at the Focke-Wulf Fw 189 Uhu and be amazed. Two Argus inverted air-cooled V12 engines.
Hey Rex, are you planning to do the Brewster Buccaneer? It was a dive bomber that the Navy deemed too clumsy for service and chose the Helldiver instead.
And then pilots complained because they liked the Dauntless more, to the point where the Helldiver was known as the "Son of a Bitch, Second-Class", after it's designation of SB2C.
@@anzaca1 Can't please that bunch. I've been there.
Yeah good idea. The helldiver too.. hd was ok though.
Rex hanger must cover half of Australia: his collection is so huge! And it just gets bigger every week!
"new experimental engine" with those words the nail was set in the coffin
Excellent. Thanks!
Another great video! 👍
hi, would be nice to have more technical sepcifications sheets, like at 6:25 , with things like operational/ max. flight range, crew for bigger planes etc.
also thank you for using metric units as well :D
I've heard that the people on the Curtis assembly line called this plane The Reluctant Dragon - reluctant to fly and always draggin'.
Enjoyed and appreciated it. Having designed a number of things in my days I seem to be fascinated by failure -- how about another video on bad engines and what made them unloved?
Thank you for doing this plane.
Yet another magnificent video on another of history's lesser known aircraft. May I suggest the CAC CA-15 Kangaroo as the topic of a future feature? Certainly to my mind the most interesting Australian designed fighter and an interesting what-if story.
“Air cooled” and “inline V-12” just doesn’t go well together.
"inline V-12" doesn't go together because it's a contradiction, "inline" means all cylinders in a single row, "V12" means cylinders arranged in 2 rows, so an engine can't be both. Germany made successful air-cooled V engines, the Fieseler Storch had an inverted air-cooled V8 and the Focke-Wulf Fw189 had inverted air-cooled V12s.
Reminds me of the Fairey Swordfish/Albacore. I'm going to watch your video on the Swordfish now ;).
It’s rare that the prototype looked better than the final product but this one is certainly one of those.
Nice one, I'm really waiting for the Seahawk video. :)
Seahawk looks the real deal, can't wait for that one.🤩
Fantastic. Thanks
As it didn't have the power to perform as a radio controlled target tug, they should perhaps have used it as a radio controlled target...
Edo ( a float manufacturer ) built and offered an aircraft for the US Navy in the XOSE-1. Specifications similar to the SC-1 Seahawk you also mentioned. Sadly for Edo, it too was powered by the Ranger V-770-1 engine, although I have not been able to find any information on how well/poorly it performed.
The albacore doesn’t bloody work , bring back the swordfish!
USN hold my drink!
Rex, there's a lot of old freight doggies out here who flew Beech 18s & died but some lived...like me. Consider 18s in the future. Also, the big single engine Fairchild Pilgrim. I was going to buy one years ago from Charlie Bunch in Washington State who had used this rare aircraft to haul fish in Alaska. I was going to haul skydivers. Thanks!
Welcome back from holiday! You should do a live stream!
What was it with Curtis and that gunners/observers canopy extending all the way to the tail. The Seamew's predecessor had it and Helldiver did also. And the Helldiver, from all accounts, proved to be a piss poor replacement for the Dauntless.
Thanks! :D
Mewing before it was cool. Nice vid btw!
I believe I can fly. Shame I can't really.
The US Navy had a similar experience with the SBC Helldiver, also a Curtiss, and the plane it was supposed to replace, the SBD Dauntless.
This is the first time I have seen a vee motor with exhausts in the valley.
I have often thought it would give better vision and ease of maintenance
Great video, thanks! Next the Shorts Seamew, another naval aircraft which was a disaster?
Please review the Concorde, it was the first model plane I built back when it was in the air.
A mono-wing seaplane should've not be too hard to create but somehow, they screwed it up!
nothing about the body or wings though, this was all in the engines used…
@@bostonrailfan2427 Hardly, the prop hitting the float, the control issues during takeoff and windcocking due to very large tail where ALL Curtis issues that had little to do with the engine. The seahawks later added dihedral to wings and tapered both leading and trailing edges to avoid the latter two, and the plane didn't seem to suffer the former due to fractionally more clearance, so it seems easily things that could have been discovered pre-production, and which the fixes for where not impacted by Navy specification. The ranger engine wasn't a winner, but it also wasn't so unconventional as to remove the design from manufactures experience, it was considered under-powered by the time it was in service, but it was also about the same power level as the previous generation of planes that actually would also be the stopgap successor.
With that said it wasn't majorly challenged by issues once aloft, limited fuel for water takeoffs doesn't sound a big drama... Navy mostly catapult launched, and even if you flew somewhere with intention of landing then flying back you'd already be within permissible loads. As noted in video the "half load" was the designs original fuel load, and took you quite far, they just extended tankage to meet the Navies desire later... which does make sense for a scout, and could still be landed/recovered to the ship safely even fully fueled (even if flight performance would have sucked).
Nifty Video....!
It must be nice to be on holiday so often...
It was honestly a neat looking plane.
And I see that the overall design was taken over into the later Curtiss Helldiver.
Remarkable how much it looks like the later Curtiss SB2C.
The Wright Brothers were first to flight.
Glen Curtis, the OG Hell Rider, advanced aeronautical engineering _and_ collected around him a plethora of brilliant people in the early years of flight.
Where do you find your info? Would love a poster of these blueprints 😁
That face at 3:59 is the coolest face I've seen so far. Chomp chomp chomp.
Though starting out, here in Buffalo, and having immense pride in Curtiss, my Dad and Uncles worked there pre-war, I had to google what a Seamew was. It's a Common Gull. Curtiss made some goofy looking planes now and then, didn't they, ha ha. This aircraft became a bur under somebody's saddle.
"Relegated to target tug" is the benchwarmer of warplanes
Saab J.21 one of the few old balls that both worked & was mass produced
Looking forward to the Seahawk! Like a P-47 with a float
i have the model plans in 1/8th sc for the sea mew from the Cleveland collection, always wanted to build her.
Thanks very much....Shoe🇺🇸
Can you do a video about the PBY Catalina please?
The beauty of US aircraft acquisition in WW II was that there were typically 3 or 4 designs in every niche, so failures weren't very damaging.
This was horrible, but there was the SOC and OS2U to substitute.
it was also during the time when they had perfected radar use along with using long range seaplanes making these obsolete from the get-go…no need for small observation planes when they had big planes doing it
@@bostonrailfan2427 well, assuming you're within range of those airfields
@@sabotabby3372 Why would a long range seaplanes like the Catalina need a airfield. An area of sheltered water is enough.
@@orbiradio2465 logistics
The fuselage looks like something that I would make in simple planes when I was ten lol
i love each video that I have watch you produced and would like to add another one for your future make. ASR aircrafts. I know of only 3 such planes. B-17, Wellington and P-47 that would carry a lifeboat or life saving equipment. Yesterday I discovered the Avro Landcaster did indeed have 46 ASR planes in service. Love to know more of all their usefuallness/videos etc.
The ASR B-17 was dubbed the Dumbo, and toted a lifeboat. The B-29 iteration of the same idea was the Super Dumbo. Longer range and endurance.
Curtiss decides to give Brewster a run for their money. It's a dead heat between the Seamew (1) and the Brewster Buccaneer for the worst US aircraft of WWII.
1) Not a name that has been born by great aircraft.
"In service for 2 months"... sounds like 2 months too long.
I don't care what you are flying, if you stall that soon after takeoff you are F'd. It will not end well at all.
Unless you "ARE" Stalin...
@@JTA1961 No not uncle Joe,🤣
They already had the original seagull, and like they say at the Skunkworks, "if it works, don't fix it."
An engine I've never heard of and on a plane that failed somehow surprise is lacking.
Can definately see the linage of the Helldiver.
They must have had spare tail assemblies available.
"The engine failed, causing it to sink..."
Positive pressure seals on the floats? If the engine isn't running, pumping air into the floats, the plane sinks?
Seamew is a doomed name. The Short Seamew was foul beyond the dreams of Beelzebub!
Since they didn't have the power to tow targets it's surprising that the machines weren't converted to targets themselves. They weren't good for much else.
Check out the face at 3:52. It's almost as if the engineers knew... 😱
I have considerable experience with US Department of Defense acquisition programs. As you alluded to, one thing which will severely endanger an acquisition, is changing the requirement after the program is well along toward completion. US DoD is strewn with the wreckage of program's with ill-defined requirements or requirements changed after the program has committed considerable resources and time. The list is a long one.
It's funny to see an aircraft design with a tail as big as a ship funnel having stability problems cured by yet MORE fin. The winglets most likely reduced a progressing side ship tendency, or made the ailerons more effective at high angle of attack slow speed flight. Sounds like it was mostly too under-powered for its own good. Should have stuck with a P&W R-985 or R-1340 and shortened the snout in the process to balance out the heavier radial and reduce the gyroscopic procession of the long mounted prop of the inline engine.
As always, another problem that another 200 horsepower wouldn't fix.
Im curious if youve got os2u kingfisher on your channel. If not, is a video planned on it?
I only know of it from warthunder where its the worst bomber in the US tech tree. (Didnt stop me from surviving an air arcade match in it slowly whittling away at a target.
The air-cooled V12 overheated ( who could expect that 🤯) and got cooled by seawater after forced landing 😂
Bribes, must have been a few really large bribes.
Well up there with the second brewster plane in badness? I think the buffalo was not brewsters fault , specs were the issue and the engine.
made me giggle when he said "engine wouldn't try to explode if the pilot looked at the throttle"
Weird plane. Looks kinda neat though.
I’ve heard of the plane and I’ve wanted to know about it
After seeing it I don't want to know about it.
True