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, thank you for putting this together. I'm a huge Curtiss SOC fan. Building a model of it as we speak. These pics and video are really cool to see.
@@josiahk4581 G'day, Well spotted. My first flight was in a DC-3, in 1961, and by 1964 the Dakotas had been replaced by Fokker F-27 Friendships...; and by the 1990s the Fokkers were withdrawing from service, pretty much Worldwide - and today DC-3s are not only still in service but they are still being converted to use Turboprop Engines. Such is life. Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
I've never seen a sea plane recovered by a ship before. It was way more efficient than I'd imagined. I'd always assumed a ship would have to stop to recover a sea plane and I'd wondered how they coped with rougher seas. The video addressed both points. Thanks dude.
My father flew in all three versions of the Seagull. SOC-1, SOC-2, SOC-3. His squadron was assigned to the USS Minneapolis CA-36. A photo of my father, Warren Judd CPO first class. It is the photo of him standing, looking outward in the back seat of the aircraft while being lifted by the crane hook.
Fantastic video! Very informative, as always. I'm incredibly glad I found this channel, you cover my favourite eras of aircraft, 20s 30s and early 40s. Keep up the good work!
My local air museum where I used to volunteer (Western Antique Aeroplane and Automobile Museum) has two main floats from Seagulls.. sitting beside the hanger in the weeds , all that’s left I’m afraid. Just thought I would mention that.
My father was an SOC pilot in 1942 assigned to VCS-6 on the USS New Orleans. He has described the landing and takeoff procedures and experiences. Some interesting chats. The SO3C was the only aircraft that scared him in his 22 year career as a naval aviator. After Tassafaronga he flew OS2U with VS-58 out of Noumea flying inshore patrol.
The turn before landing was known in the RN and RNAS as a cruiser turn, it was a 15 to 2o degree turn to either Port or Starboard it was made so as to create an area of 'calmish' water to land upon :)
At about age 12, I came across a series of Boy's adventure novels from WWII. The main character was Red Randall, with various stories about his adventures in the PTO and CBITO. One of the novels had a drawing of "Red" at the controls of the SOC. Thanks for sharing. Narragansett Bay.
Thanks for a video on a favorite of mine of from the US Navy of WW II. Unlike the Kingfisher, which didn't have folding wings, the Seagull could fit in the hangers of pre-war cruisers.
Another one that, in my eyes, looks really good. Actually looks better than the Duck from Grumman. And I really like the collapsible turtle deck. Nice.
OTTOMH Im guessing: Seagull > Seamew > Seagull Swordfish > Albacore > Swordfish Essentially the only two WW2 planes where predecessor effectively replaced the replacement - as whilst the Hs123 came back into service it never really replaced the Ju87 fully.
Fair enough, albeit to also be fair, the Hs123 didn't came back. Simply never left; II.(Schl)/LG2 was still equipped with the Hs 123 when the war started, and the "stopgap" biplane soldiered for the full war.
The Seagull did not come back to replace its replacement. This video is misleading. It came back to replace the Curtiss company's own contender for a replacement. But the 320 Seagulls were supplemented and replaced by over 1500 of the more modern Vought Kingfisher, which became the standard floatplane.
Wow, a biplane with flaps and slats?! Stall speed must have been comical lol. Also that footage of the recovery while underway is incredibly scary. Hell no. 🤣
I've seen these in old videos and games but never knew the history behind them, thank you! It's a real shame that none survive today, I would think one of these would be an essential display at a Naval Museum.
I would like to hear more about these scout/observation planes! I heard they were real workhorses, hunting small vessels, doing rescue missions, sometimes providing light air support, and of course doing reconnaissance.
....and being sitting ducks every time they met a fighter or even a cheeky light bomber pilot! Those guys were badass! Look at the incredible performance of the observer in the aircrft recovery sequence!
Great video! I've always enjoyed learning about the aircraft of the 1930s. Would you consider doing one on the Curtiss SBC Helldiver? The original one that actually worked, mind you, not that horrible SB2C from the war. Just a thought. Anyway, thanks again for a great video and enjoy the rest of your holiday. Cheers.
My father was a Curtiss SOC Seagull pilot on the USS Minneapolis before the war and was also the ship's photographer so I have many SOC photos at home. My late older brother was born in 1938 and dad of course named him "Curtis". Unfortunately Dad got so sick in late 1939 that the Navy that they gave him a medical discharge in early 1940. He soon started with United Airlines as a DC-3 pilot and as a result missed the war spending it as a civilian.
I love these videos, as I am a huge fan of early aeroplanes and airships. Could you please make a video about the Imperial Airship Scheme? I'd love to see your view on it. Thanks again for the content.
Dad flew the SOC from the USS New Orleans in 1942. He had two flights in the SO3C from Ford Island and told me that was the only plane he flew in his 20yr naval career that scared him.
I really like the explanation of the recovery process. I wonder what types of recovery processes were out there. Was it all similar to this or completely different?
Reminds me a bit of the old Avro Anson, affectionately known as the Flying Greenhouse due to it's massive side windows. My father was the sergeant of B Flight at Halfpenny Green, I still have all his notes. He was first into a slit trench during a raid with 3 'oiks' on top of him. They wriggled out of the way of a red hot bomb splinter - he couldn't. He got a medal for being burned on the bum lying at the bottom of a hole. I have the bomb splinter and the medal.
Pratt and Whitney did not build an R-1240 engine. The Wasp radial engine displaced 1,344 cubic inches, hence the (correct) designation R-1340. There are quite a few of the engines still in service today.
I hope we get an informational video about the Curtiss Seamew, I've read that it had some shortcomings, but to be a colossal failure warrants some explanation. I always thought it looked weird with its inline engine
The simple answer is it was underpowered and had an unreliable engine. It was so underpowered that it could not take off from the water with a full fuel load. The longer answer has to do with the Navy forcing some design choices and changes in requirements causing all sorts of problems. So it is truly bad?
When a double wing (not a biplane) wig does not have a tail, how are they kept from flipping? Am I wrong to assume reduced control and lift on the rear wing?How close can wings be spaced in that manner? And why don't they have leading edge slats or complicated flaps? Really this excludes all turbine powered, black sea skiing, monsters and it's ilk. This type has always been somewhat of a mystery over the lifting bodies or the single wing/ massive tail. Is there a way to have a super low stall speed while basically horizontal and still have top speeds similar to a 4 passenger modern run of the mill plane like a Cessna or something? Looks like I have more questions than I thought.. How do you not pitch-up and break the ground effect with out a tail? Which has the broadest range of speed of all designs? It is all these little things that get left out (not by you though) by broadstroke docs. Thanks if you actually made it this far, and double for any answers. Great job as always.
The rear wing generates lift (like a canard). The essential caution is the front wing needs to stall first to ensure safe stall recovery. 90% of modern airliners also have the tail configured to generate lift too - and they often include fuel tanks inside the tail surface as well.
The saddest example of planes NOT lasting has to be DeHaviland Mosquito. Probably the most versatile of WW2 and for a long time the fastest. But it’s wood in composite structure did not weather well. Today we have only two flying.
NOTE: The acronym "NACA" is never pronounced as a word, always just the letters. I know this is not true of its follow-on decendent NASA, but for some reason is for NACA. Great video other wise. Thanks.
Really like this channel, but I contend that the title of the video, and the commentary from 7:50 on, are incorrect. The Seagull was not more capable or successful than the aircraft that replaced it. It was only better than the aircraft that specifically the Curtiss company designed to replace it, the Seamew. But the 320 Seagulls were replaced by over 1500 Vought OS2U Kingfishers, which became the standard floatplane.
The Kingfisher was pretty much on par with the Seagull in most metrics which is why the Seamew was designed to replace them both. As mentioned in the video, the Kingfisher lacked folding wings which limited the number that could be carried to two since they had to sit on the catapults for the entire voyage as compared to the Seagull which could fit into the hangars. Having the capability to carry spare aircraft and a protected space for maintenance are considerable advantages from an operational perspective when flight performance is relatively even. While Kingfishers were more prolific than Seagulls, some ships continued to use Seagulls through the end of the war.
@@MalfosRanger There were issues with hangars. Amidships, they took up far too much space, and created an avgas fire hazard in a bad place. Below the deck aft, they created a large resonance chamber above the screws which caused severe vibration at speed. Some missile cruisers built in the 70s had a helicopter hangar in the same spot aft with the elevator being the launch pad. Their use was soon abandoned, with Tomahawk launchers being placed over the sealed hangar roof doors. Aft was also a much better recovery position for float planes; many suffered damage by hitting the ship while trying to taxi close alongside to be recovered amidships. There were not many occasions when having a floatplane sitting on the catapult aft was much disadvantage. In the night battle of Guadalcanal the South Dakota's float plane was set ablaze by the blast of the aft 16" guns, but the next salvo blew the plane overboard and put out the fire. It is worth noting that all ships with hangars for the float planes were designed when planes still had fabric coverings. When all-metal skinned planes were adopted, it was realized that hangars were not necessary, and folding wings were of less importance. Also, by the time the Kingfisher came into general use there were so many carriers in service that scouting by float planes was no longer necessary, and 2 planes were enough for spotting the fall of shot.
![An Experimental Soviet Tailless Bomber | Kalinin K-12 [Aircraft Overview #52]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/S64jq0TEWMc/mqdefault.jpg)
![An Experimental Soviet Tailless Bomber | Kalinin K-12 [Aircraft Overview #52]](/img/tr.png)
![A Plane So Bad It Was Removed From Service | Curtiss SO3C Seamew [Aircraft Overview #56]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nA3IlT2QYg0/mqdefault.jpg)
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Plane That Cut Off Your Arm If You Wanted To Land | CANT Z.501 Gabbiano [Aircraft Overview #65]](/img/1.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 :)
you can do video about Consolidated PB2Y Coronado
Please do a Budd RB-1 Conestoga! THERE'S a rareplane!
Can you do a video about the soviet SU-2 or the british Firefly
Hey Rex, thank you for putting this together. I'm a huge Curtiss SOC fan. Building a model of it as we speak. These pics and video are really cool to see.
I love these kind of planes that last longer than they were ever intended to
war will do that, you use what you have even if they’re already obsolete
It's like patients outliving the doctor saying soda is bad or smoking is bad or whatever. Just awesome lol. 🤙
Like the dc-3?
@@josiahk4581
G'day,
Well spotted.
My first flight was in a DC-3, in 1961, and by 1964 the Dakotas had been replaced by Fokker F-27 Friendships...; and by the 1990s the Fokkers were withdrawing from service, pretty much Worldwide - and today DC-3s are not only still in service but they are still being converted to use Turboprop Engines.
Such is life.
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
@@josiahk4581 or the Swordfish
I've never seen a sea plane recovered by a ship before. It was way more efficient than I'd imagined. I'd always assumed a ship would have to stop to recover a sea plane and I'd wondered how they coped with rougher seas.
The video addressed both points.
Thanks dude.
and a bit dangerous having that co-pilot walk out to the wing like that.
My father flew in all three versions of the Seagull. SOC-1, SOC-2, SOC-3. His squadron was assigned to the USS Minneapolis CA-36. A photo of my father, Warren Judd CPO first class. It is the photo of him standing, looking outward in the back seat of the aircraft while being lifted by the crane hook.
Curtiss SO3C Seamew: I thought I've replaced you!
Curtiss SOC Seagull: *My retirement was greatly exaggerated!*
Kudos for the Mark Twain reference.
The Seamew may have just about capable of replacing the Wright Flyer. The operative words being Jay and just about.
Man it must be hard to outlive your replacement. An airplane should never have to go through the trauma of burying its son. :(
imagine how many sons the swordfish buried
🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪
@@raulisrael7342 This was the first thing I thought about too.
@@nazarderkach9320 the sword fish burying more than 2 sons:my pain is beyond your understanding
Seagull: Ah! I'm better than my replacment!
Swordfish: Welcome to the club, mate.
Fantastic video! Very informative, as always. I'm incredibly glad I found this channel, you cover my favourite eras of aircraft, 20s 30s and early 40s. Keep up the good work!
At 4:55 I'm very impressed with the retrieval method at sea.
It was a lot faster to accomplish than I thought it would be.
also impressed by the observer 5:05 ...must have background of a circus acrobat for the job i guess :D
There's something special about float planes. I enjoy your in depth coverage of these often forgotten important aircraft.
Yes, too bad none survived.
It had an admirable service record.
My local air museum where I used to volunteer (Western Antique Aeroplane and Automobile Museum) has two main floats from Seagulls.. sitting beside the hanger in the weeds , all that’s left I’m afraid. Just thought I would mention that.
the plane sucks on enlisted so im glad none survived
Never leave home without a watertight map case.
Very illuminating!
Have you done anything on Japanese float planes? The IJN relied heavily on them for scouting and target illumination.
Unless its a prewar design he won't cover it now
@@loveofmangos001 The F1M would be a good fit. Less than a thousand built starting in 1936, none survived the war.
Definitely plan to cover IJN aircraft from both the interwar years and WW2 :)
@@RexsHangar yay :D
My father was an SOC pilot in 1942 assigned to VCS-6 on the USS New Orleans. He has described the landing and takeoff procedures and experiences. Some interesting chats. The SO3C was the only aircraft that scared him in his 22 year career as a naval aviator. After Tassafaronga he flew OS2U with VS-58 out of Noumea flying inshore patrol.
Love the explanation on the Seagull recovery procedure.
I don't know what it is, but trimaran flying boats and planes with similar float configuration just look so beautiful.
Ugh, if only 1 had survived the scrap yard! Imagine building something and not putting it in storage for posterity! Gosh!
We got the blueprints
The turn before landing was known in the RN and RNAS as a cruiser turn, it was a 15 to 2o degree turn to either Port or Starboard it was made so as to create an area of 'calmish' water to land upon :)
At about age 12, I came across a series of Boy's adventure novels from WWII. The main character was Red Randall, with various stories about his adventures in the PTO and CBITO. One of the novels had a drawing of "Red" at the controls of the SOC. Thanks for sharing. Narragansett Bay.
Oh MAN I love this channel.. I should catch some sleep but it’s too interesting O.o
Thanks for a video on a favorite of mine of from the US Navy of WW II. Unlike the Kingfisher, which didn't have folding wings, the Seagull could fit in the hangers of pre-war cruisers.
Nice 1 m8, I liked Seagulls, if I remember age 5-6 [1962], it was one of my first kit builds. Long time agao for Seagulls and me.
Another one that, in my eyes, looks really good. Actually looks better than the Duck from Grumman. And I really like the collapsible turtle deck. Nice.
What a lovely little niche this channel has carved out with concise accurate and interesting guides on lesser known aircraft.
OTTOMH Im guessing:
Seagull > Seamew > Seagull
Swordfish > Albacore > Swordfish
Essentially the only two WW2 planes where predecessor effectively replaced the replacement - as whilst the Hs123 came back into service it never really replaced the Ju87 fully.
Fair enough, albeit to also be fair, the Hs123 didn't came back. Simply never left; II.(Schl)/LG2 was still equipped with the Hs 123 when the war started, and the "stopgap" biplane soldiered for the full war.
The Seagull did not come back to replace its replacement. This video is misleading. It came back to replace the Curtiss company's own contender for a replacement.
But the 320 Seagulls were supplemented and replaced by over 1500 of the more modern Vought Kingfisher, which became the standard floatplane.
Post-war, arguably, the USAF taking A1 Skyraiders almost meant a replacement for their F100s.
A fine little plane. Sometimes good enough is splendid.
Wow, a biplane with flaps and slats?! Stall speed must have been comical lol. Also that footage of the recovery while underway is incredibly scary. Hell no. 🤣
Your description and vision of the water capture technique was very illuminating. Thanks for your research into such little known aspects of aviation.
I've seen these in old videos and games but never knew the history behind them, thank you! It's a real shame that none survive today, I would think one of these would be an essential display at a Naval Museum.
Was not expecting the method of how they recovered the plane to the ship.
Excellent. 😃
I’ve always been interested in these little planes that flew off of cruisers and battleships. Thanks!😎
And that's how float planes were recovered. Awesome!
I had never even heard of this plane and I've been around more than a half century.
Thank you for the information.
Very good video. You would have thought that at least one would have survived. But, of course, they weren't glamorous.
I would love to see a replica built - and displayed next to a Swordfish.
Great channel, awesome content. I hope it grows fast.
I would like to hear more about these scout/observation planes! I heard they were real workhorses, hunting small vessels, doing rescue missions, sometimes providing light air support, and of course doing reconnaissance.
....and being sitting ducks every time they met a fighter or even a cheeky light bomber pilot! Those guys were badass! Look at the incredible performance of the observer in the aircrft recovery sequence!
So, basically the US equivalent to the Fairey Swordfish. Supposed to be replaced, but just kept going.
completely different tasks, different kinds of plane
@@uncletimo6059 I think they meant more of hot they were implemented, not what their task was but more how it did that task.
@@rareminer1329 okee dokee
Great video! I've always enjoyed learning about the aircraft of the 1930s. Would you consider doing one on the Curtiss SBC Helldiver? The original one that actually worked, mind you, not that horrible SB2C from the war. Just a thought. Anyway, thanks again for a great video and enjoy the rest of your holiday. Cheers.
Even the Beast had its own Curtissly charm, but the SBC is one of my favorites 💜.
@@jamesbugbee6812 Yes, there was a lot that was Wright about that aircraft.
Thanks! I've seen it in early war photos, and brief mentions, and thought it was quickly phased out. This video was very informative.
Great vid Rex! Truly a fascinating aircraft.
I just found this channel, and it completes the three holy ones. Drach is boat Jesus, the chieftain is tank Jesus, and this channel is plane Jesus
And Ian is gun Jesus
She saw "Seagulls" by the seashore. Good show. Thanks Rex!
Thank you
Great work Sir thank you
It was simply very capable and made simple where it could be - and I bet that really got the likes of the service crews.
My father was a Curtiss SOC Seagull pilot on the USS Minneapolis before the war and was also the ship's photographer so I have many SOC photos at home. My late older brother was born in 1938 and dad of course named him "Curtis". Unfortunately Dad got so sick in late 1939 that the Navy that they gave him a medical discharge in early 1940. He soon started with United Airlines as a DC-3 pilot and as a result missed the war spending it as a civilian.
Interesting video.
Thanks Rex.
Seeing a seaplane land on the water, then get yanked up by the ship's crane is super cool.
Great video. Thanks again!
I didn't know about its use on escort carriers. A boatload of Seagulls and Buffalos; what a mental image.
I wish you were able to show the plane hanger on cruisers
Good video as usual. Another aircraft that out performed its successor is the Douglas DC-6. The Douglas DC-7's engine had reliability issues.
Thank you. Bi-planes serving though out WW2, very cool.
hello thanks so much for correctly naming the institutions, and the Geography. Very elegant presentation. saludos
I love these videos, as I am a huge fan of early aeroplanes and airships. Could you please make a video about the Imperial Airship Scheme? I'd love to see your view on it. Thanks again for the content.
You can definitely see where the Corsair came from.
Build an aircraft. Now build its replacement which is not as good as the aircraft it is replacing. Not the first time I've seen that.
Yeah, I'm getting Swordfish/Albacore vibes here.
That SOP for the military
@@scrapbmxrider16 not just the military.
@@HeliophobicRiverman must admit I had that one in mind
Just about sums up the british car industry in the 60s/70s
they needed to update the SeaMew make it more powerful... better engine and such. they should have re-worked it and released as the Sea Mewtwo
Can you cover the pzl 42 or 37 they are something I want to see in a video
Dad flew the SOC from the USS New Orleans in 1942. He had two flights in the SO3C from Ford Island and told me that was the only plane he flew in his 20yr naval career that scared him.
Oh boy. An Airplane Drachinifel. Time to dive down a rabbit hole of aircraft.
I really like the explanation of the recovery process. I wonder what types of recovery processes were out there. Was it all similar to this or completely different?
It's the Swordfish's American cousin.
I was just to say that 😂
Pretty Cool Little Plane... Sad that their are No Examples Left. Maybe someone will Recreate One.
I always admire the ability of stagger wing designs in short take offs and landings
What a brilliant little plane.
I love these old transitional types that carved out a niche for themselves.
Reminds me a bit of the old Avro Anson, affectionately known as the Flying Greenhouse due to it's massive side windows. My father was the sergeant of B Flight at Halfpenny Green, I still have all his notes. He was first into a slit trench during a raid with 3 'oiks' on top of him. They wriggled out of the way of a red hot bomb splinter - he couldn't. He got a medal for being burned on the bum lying at the bottom of a hole. I have the bomb splinter and the medal.
Love the alphabet spaghetti of USN designations from that era.
Thanks!
Great channel this!
That plane looks like the Curtis Helldiver
Bit like the swordfish, who were able to outperform their replacements, the poor old applecore!
Pratt and Whitney did not build an R-1240 engine. The Wasp radial engine displaced 1,344 cubic inches, hence the (correct) designation R-1340. There are quite a few of the engines still in service today.
Actually a pretty good looking airplane.
Did I miss your mention of the OS2U Kingfisher? Would be a relevant contrast and comparison.
I hope we get an informational video about the Curtiss Seamew, I've read that it had some shortcomings, but to be a colossal failure warrants some explanation. I always thought it looked weird with its inline engine
The simple answer is it was underpowered and had an unreliable engine. It was so underpowered that it could not take off from the water with a full fuel load. The longer answer has to do with the Navy forcing some design choices and changes in requirements causing all sorts of problems. So it is truly bad?
This is a land landing gear down this is a water landing gear up. Part of the landing check list I would bet.
I love Navy biplanes!!! All of them Boeing, Curtiss and Grumman.
Sad that they didn't preserve at least one example considering how important it proved to be.
I want one of these!
Like the Swordfish, outlived its alleged replacement by being simple, rugged, and useful.
Gotta love a bipe on floats. TFP
When the chips are down the Seagull comes through.
When a double wing (not a biplane) wig does not have a tail, how are they kept from flipping? Am I wrong to assume reduced control and lift on the rear wing?How close can wings be spaced in that manner? And why don't they have leading edge slats or complicated flaps? Really this excludes all turbine powered, black sea skiing, monsters and it's ilk. This type has always been somewhat of a mystery over the lifting bodies or the single wing/ massive tail. Is there a way to have a super low stall speed while basically horizontal and still have top speeds similar to a 4 passenger modern run of the mill plane like a Cessna or something? Looks like I have more questions than I thought.. How do you not pitch-up and break the ground effect with out a tail? Which has the broadest range of speed of all designs? It is all these little things that get left out (not by you though) by broadstroke docs. Thanks if you actually made it this far, and double for any answers. Great job as always.
The rear wing generates lift (like a canard). The essential caution is the front wing needs to stall first to ensure safe stall recovery.
90% of modern airliners also have the tail configured to generate lift too - and they often include fuel tanks inside the tail surface as well.
What about the Supermarine Walrus et al ?
Curtis, the aircraft company that just didn't see the whole jet engine thing as amounting to anything.
The C-46 Commando and the P-40 were peak Curtiss. After them, the company lost their way and the SB2C Helldiver was proof of that.
What about the Kingfishers?
COULD YOU DO A VIDEO REGARDING THE ROYAL AND COMMONWEALTH NAVIES VERSUS THE IMPERIAL JAPANESE NAVY
This is a plane channel, not a ship channel. I do recommend Drachinifel for that video suggestion tho
The saddest example of planes NOT lasting has to be DeHaviland Mosquito. Probably the most versatile of WW2 and for a long time the fastest. But it’s wood in composite structure did not weather well. Today we have only two flying.
Was this airplane related to the civilian Falcon it resembled?
Primitive but outliving it's replacements. Sounds like the Swordfish.
5:42 R-1340-22 surely?
How about Vought XF8U-3? Phantom killer if NASA armed their airplanes, or so I hear.
Regarding its engine, the wasp, I thought it is 1340. But now I'm conflicted with the r-1240, also called wasp
NOTE: The acronym "NACA" is never pronounced as a word, always just the letters. I know this is not true of its follow-on decendent NASA, but for some reason is for NACA. Great video other wise. Thanks.
Actually it is and has been for 70 years, thanks the the NACA duct.
It persevered , which is well as the Curtis replacement was ugly.
Really like this channel, but I contend that the title of the video, and the commentary from 7:50 on, are incorrect. The Seagull was not more capable or successful than the aircraft that replaced it. It was only better than the aircraft that specifically the Curtiss company designed to replace it, the Seamew.
But the 320 Seagulls were replaced by over 1500 Vought OS2U Kingfishers, which became the standard floatplane.
Exactly
whatever floats your boat...
The Kingfisher was pretty much on par with the Seagull in most metrics which is why the Seamew was designed to replace them both. As mentioned in the video, the Kingfisher lacked folding wings which limited the number that could be carried to two since they had to sit on the catapults for the entire voyage as compared to the Seagull which could fit into the hangars. Having the capability to carry spare aircraft and a protected space for maintenance are considerable advantages from an operational perspective when flight performance is relatively even.
While Kingfishers were more prolific than Seagulls, some ships continued to use Seagulls through the end of the war.
@@MalfosRanger
There were issues with hangars. Amidships, they took up far too much space, and created an avgas fire hazard in a bad place. Below the deck aft, they created a large resonance chamber above the screws which caused severe vibration at speed.
Some missile cruisers built in the 70s had a helicopter hangar in the same spot aft with the elevator being the launch pad. Their use was soon abandoned, with Tomahawk launchers being placed over the sealed hangar roof doors.
Aft was also a much better recovery position for float planes; many suffered damage by hitting the ship while trying to taxi close alongside to be recovered amidships.
There were not many occasions when having a floatplane sitting on the catapult aft was much disadvantage. In the night battle of Guadalcanal the South Dakota's float plane was set ablaze by the blast of the aft 16" guns, but the next salvo blew the plane overboard and put out the fire.
It is worth noting that all ships with hangars for the float planes were designed when planes still had fabric coverings. When all-metal skinned planes were adopted, it was realized that hangars were not necessary, and folding wings were of less importance.
Also, by the time the Kingfisher came into general use there were so many carriers in service that scouting by float planes was no longer necessary, and 2 planes were enough for spotting the fall of shot.
If you watch Tora, Tora, Tora, you'll see what looks like a SOC Seagull being blown off it's catapult aboard one of the battleships.