The Republic P-43 Lancer - A Giant’s Stepping Stone
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 окт 2024
- The Republic P-47 is a legendary aircraft. But not so well known was its predecessor, and the company's first production aircraft - the P-43 Lancer.
Sources for this video can be found at the relevant article on:
militarymatter...
If you like this content please consider supporting me at Patreon:
/ ednash
Want another way to help support this channel? Maybe consider buying my book on my time fighting ISIS:
amzn.to/3preYyO
P-43 is the Thunderbolt but like when it was in eighth grade.
More like half-step from F2A Buffalo to Thunderbolt...
You can see the makings of the P-47, evolution at work
Indeed ..!
Very Juggish
Yes the Jug.
@@exb.r.buckeyeman845 the Jug was beautiful I believe, all 2000+ hp and each .50 cal mg. A beauty that every killer fighter pilot loved
I hereby dub it: Thundermidget
The pilot who took the photo of Mt. Everest was Robert Scott. He gives his account of the flight in his book "God is My Copilot".
You saved me having to type that ! That story always stuck with me. Maybe that's why I had to drive a turbocharged car in high school..
Yes and in the book he got in a little trouble for it with the monks and the religious people as they witnessed him climbing up above it and complained to Air corps officials. He's borrowed the p43 from an Airfield and was impressed by it's performance And he mentioned the leaky fuel system problems it had
The story of the P-35/P-36 dispute by the USAAC, was resolved in the P-36 getting chosen. However, Curtiss was actually the first company to respond to the Army's request for a new fighter prototype. When Seversky brought its aircraft, it was underpowered and had fixed landing gear. In the course of testing, it crashed. Seversky, naturally, asked to repair their aircraft, but placed a new, stronger engine and now sported retracting landing gear. Curtiss called a time-out, stating that Seversky had brought essentially a different plane, so asked to improve their own P-36. It was these improvements that led to its choice by the Army.
It is a fascinating story, and I may have gotten some points wrong. I await your episode on the Army's choice.
A funny thing, the P-36 was not used by the US Army, as much as it was by foreign services.
The p-35 was damaged on the way to testing, saving Seversky a good deal of embarrassment....
This plane has the makings of a varsity athlete!
Uncle Junior woulda been proud.
The production numbers also illustrated the desperation of an unprepared nation, frantically playing catch-up.
And in 18 months was out producing all other belligerents combined
@@petersouthernboy6327 Mind boggling, isn't it?
The P-35s going to the Philippines were actually P-35As diverted from a foreign order to Sweden. Some also served in Sweden.
I don't know if you have seen them, but there are color films on critical past, of P-35s with the Swedish three crowns roundel from the PI. When painted olive drab, the paint would chip off.
@@markbauer1096 Yes, they are absolutely fascinating. What a modeling subject!
I recall reading some time ago that Sweden received about half of their order of the aircraft before the US placed an arms embargo on non-allied nations and re-routed the rest to the Philippines.
Thanks, Ed. I came across the P-43 many years ago but there was very little in the way of in formation given at the time. So it was great to have the blanks filled in.
I've been a fan of WWII aircraft since childhood. I only became aware of the P-43 in the last year or two. So this was a stop gap to help keep Seversky/ Republic aircraft going and learn some lessons about the next step in technology? P 35 to P-43 to P-47 that design team loved big chunky aircraft! I love them.
The chunk was needed to house the ductwork for the turbo-supercharger. There was all kinds of crazy designs at this time especially with people trying to cram a turbo into a fighter.
Keep 'm coming Ed! love your work.
Very timely. Currently modelling an RAAF example. There is a 1943 crash site in rugged country NE of Melbourne where I used to fish for trout. RIP. TFP
That one pilot that took that picture of Everest was Col. Robert Scott, it's in his book "God is my Co-Pilot" a worth while read.
Another excellent Video Ed. The Gloster F5/34 (which you've also done a video on) and the Italian Regiane Re 2000 were both inspired by (some sources say had actual design input from) the Seversky P35, and like the Lancer, used a "wet" wing, with the fuel tanks being an integral part of the wing structure. The Re 2000 suffered quite a few problems with that, just like the Lancer, which is one reason why the Italians did not initially order it for themselves. That didn't stop the British from ordering 300 of them, an order dropped of course when Italy joined the war in June 1940.
There were 2 or 3 engineers for Seversky who returned home to Italy and joined Reggiane. Thus the origin of the Re.2000
Have people ever watched "Victory Through Airpower"? It was a Disney made extended informercial essentially for Seversky's theories & it got some things wrong but it got a whole lot right. Very interesting indeed.
I should have added, it just shows you how massive the US industrial base was, they could essentially waste 3 months production making these.
Luckily they had the maturity of judgment to not put all their eggs in one basket, as promising as that basket might have been. The B-29 program was a massive investment, but the B-32 was designed, built, and fielded in case the Boeing airplane ran into problems.
I have a copy of the book, "Victory Through Airpower" by Seversky. The jacket is rather ragged, but the book itself is in good condition.
Bigtime. Love the P-47! The P-47, P-38, F4U Corsair, are my favorites for sure. I do also like the Hawker Tempest!
I was a Claire Chennault fanboy when in my teens and picked the AVG for a 50+ page project in jr. high. The Flying Tigers most definitely had a small number of Lancers and used them for reconnaissance and reconnaissance interception. I don't recall anything about in-flight fuel loss, but they did lose (I think) 3 out of 4 pilots repositioning Lancers in one flight. The account was that they got weathered out at their destination and in trying to wait it out or dipping below overcast finally had to bail out in severe terrain.
A few of the pilots were quite keen on the Lancer as, at altitude, it was invulnerable. Chennault considered it but the logistics of supporting a second, unrelated, aircraft nixed it. They kept a few for special duties, as above, and someone had a personal Lancer for liaison duties as he had to regularly shuttle around the theater on business and sometimes scouted out weather ahead of a ground-strike. The attraction being, again, that at altitude with a little care, it was un-interceptable by the Japanese.
BTW, I built a 1:32 of the P-40 for the project and a 1:48 P-43 Lancer. So SOMEONE issued a plastic model of it.
No it
I had no idea that Seversky and Republic were the same company!
That is the F105s Great Grandpa.
This aircraft in the hands of say Yeager for example was an ace maker aganist the Soviets during the early days of the ColdWar. Thanks!
I remember reading about the Chinese ones, the author of "God is My Co-Pilot" Robert Lee Scott Jr. mentioned flying over the Himalayas in one, it could have been him who took the photo of Mt. Everest. I remember at the time thinking what is that plane, never heard of it ;) Apparently it was only used by the Flying Tigers or Burma command for high altitude work (which P-40's were not the best at). I don't think the C-47's, C-46's, or Liberators of the Burma Hump air lift needed close air cover for most of their journey including the highest altitude parts; so luckily the P-36's were not really required and the far superior P-40's sufficed.
In the movie God is My Co-Pilot, there is a scene in which Scott and a Catholic priest are flying over the Himalayas in a P43 in a storm. If I remember right they used a model for the scene.
Allied aircraft flying the Hump Route were sometimes intercepted by the Japanese.
.
Great vid Ed, a fascinating story of an interesting aircraft.
When you do the P-35 ''Passenger Pigeon'' story, don't forget its clone, the Reggiane Re-2000. I've had some lovely but heated discussions with Italian gentlemen about the difference between coincidence and intellectual property theft. Kartvelli is not an Italiian name.
great plane pick !
hmmm maybe you should have started with the P-35 as it was actually a very important export plane.
Love the shot with the short tail P40F- where was that taken? (7:47). Not all Aussie P43s made it back, one is supposed to be being restored
That's a good looking plane.
i always enjoy your content. very informative. would you consider one on the more obscure Northrop model 3A?Im fascinated with these unknown fighters aircraft from WW2. respectfully,
Brian Grant
The "wet wing" fuel tanks were just an idea ahead of their time. Later military aircraft such as the C-130 have wet wing tanks for jet fuel, but with VERY porous foam inserts. If a fire occurs in the tank, the foam melts, off gases, and the gasses produced starve the fire of oxygen. Even large civilian transports eventually had to institute a system to inert the tanks for safety, after the 747 that crashed off of New York many years ago. These days, it's done with a system that sieves nitrogen from the air, and that nitrogen pushes the air containing oxygen out of the tanks. No oxygen, no fire.
K.M. .............good damn info !!!!!!did not know that .
Its funny how the P35 and P36 looked similar and one basically evolved into the P40 while the other evolved into the P47 which have almost nothing in common.
Thanks Ed.
I find most interesting the comparison between the lines of development followed by the P-35, which ultimately led to the P-47, and the similar, although superior, Reggiane Re-2000, designed by Roberto Longhi who had been working (and learning) in the Seversky engineering team, which led to the completely different Re-2005 Sagittario. Great work Rex, yours is one of my three favorite english language history channels, along with Drachinifel's and Greg's. Top notch! 👍👍👍 and thank you!
According to Corey Jones in his book in Seversky and Republic aircraft, the turbo-supercharger proved unreliable and the "wet wing" fuel tanks leaked constantly. Robert L. Scott also noted this in autobiography, "God Is My CopPilot." I readrthe book in my younger days and remember his description of the P-43.
The P-43 was not a bad fighter. However, it was a pre-war fighter, with all of a pre-war fighter's shortcomings, such as insufficient power, armor protection and armament. The P-47 was undeniably superior in every way, and was the fighter that the USAAC really wanted. However, the P-47 was not yet ready for production, so the AAC ordered the P-43 just to keep the production line going until it was. The British did exactly the same thing when they kept the production lines busy building Fairey Battles until more suitable bomber designs became available to replace it.
Another great video 😊 thank you
Jug's little brother.
Thank you
Wow, I was looking up the P35 and P43 only yesterday and wondered if you had covered one, or both of them. I noticed some had a window on one side of the fuselage, must've been for a passenger.
There were civil racing versions of the P-35
I think this was on the entrance hatch. Some early P-35s were entered via the fuselage and had fixed „canopies“. They probably should have been called „cannot-opies“ or „alwaysstayclosies“.
You forgot "Terry and the Pirates" in the comics. They flew P 35s or P 43s if my memory is correct. They got lots of kills with them.
There's a blast from the past!
First to say Thanks Ed …!
You dared to dream. When others were content, you worked harder. When others settled, you reached higher. You are one of life’s inspiring characters. Enjoy the happiness from this great achievement.
@@Mike-DuBose Might as well ..!
I wish Repiblic and Grumman were still around.
Test bed for the thunderbolt, smart engineering.
At the 4:54 mark, the plane reminds me more of a Grumman F4F Wildcat than the (later manufactured) P-47. The stubby body says Grumman to me, but the cowl says Juggie. Call this a mini-Juggie.
Nice vid...didn't know about the earlier versions of the Thunderbolt, which is my favorite of all WW2 fighters.
Could you do the Dewoitine D.551 next ?
Ed, is there any chance that you could do a future video on Nazi Germany's forgotten anti-tank gun, namely the 50mm. L.42 PaK.37, of which just over 2,600 were built before production was halted, in 1940. It's shortcomings, during trials in 1937, directly led to the development of the 50mm. L.60 PaK.38 anti-tank gun. Both used the same 4.5 pound projectiles.
It also resulted in the 50mm. L.42 KwK.38 tank gun, employed on the Pz.III.F to H series.
Forgotten AT guns, hey?
You know, I am tempted to create an "Almost Weapons" category.
does the AT gun have wings ???
P-66s in the background at 8:19. I think he’s already done a video on them. Still neat to see them, though.
I was scrolling for an answer before asking what they were. Thank you!
As the P-35 is mentioned but somewhat dismissed as useless I should perhaps point out that the Swedish air force was very happy with the 60 or so they bought, and kept the type in service until the early 1950s.
Scandinavians seem to make good use out of whatever aircraft they get.
The P 43 reminds me of a baby P 47.
I'm amazed that an airplane like the P-43 used an engine more powerful that an A6M1 Zero and was still inferior.
Who said it was inferior?
Interesting! I'd never heard of the plane at all.
It's actually pretty awesome in War Thunder Sim.
I really can't believe that it had wet wings, that just seems like such a truly horrific idea.
It takes time and forethought to eliminate things like that. Look at the WW1 aircraft and you'll find examples of gravity-fed fuel tanks above and in front of the cockpit on the upper wing. And the first time I drove a pickup truck and found the fuel tank was directly behind me, with nothing but the sheet metal? Brrr.
@@TheAnxiousAardvark
The pickup tank was as bad as it appeared. Any intusion into the cab bad enough to rupture the tank, probably meant you were dead anyway!
@@TheAnxiousAardvark The first time I was in a pickup like that it was an ambulance. I'd just joined New York City EMS and was assigned one. Back then (1982) the city had the worst ambulances I'd ever seen. Did it stop me from driving fast? No. I was young.
Anyway, gas tanks don't catch fire easily, it takes some trying. Even leaking gas doesn't light up to fully engulf the car instantly. I saw a lot of crashed cars, cars with little in the way of safety features, and very, very few caught fire. Pretty sure Mythbusters did an episode on this.
(NYC EMS did improve and we had decent ambulances by the late 1980s. We merged with the FDNY in the mid-90s and things got even better. FDNY always got high priority in the city budget and didn't skimp on equipment.
Wasn't the photo of Everest taken by Pappy Boyington? He talks about flying above it in his biography.
Even if it wasn't his pic I'd bet he took credit for it.
@@mbryson2899 possibly very possibly
Hi Ed!
Evening!
Like somebody else said this looks like a baby P-47 thunderbolt I mean it had a turbo supercharged radial engine as well as a familiar looking fuselage and wings
I can't help but wonder if this had arrived earlier maybe with self-sealing fuel tanks and some armor it could have been a little bit better than a p40
The US military *really* could have used a dozen or two of these at Guadalcanal during August '42 to January '43. It would have been a damn sight better than the P-400.
The P-43 Lancer would've made a dandy little nightfighter against Washing Machine Charlies.
The Army should have made nightfighters out of them.
In the 1943 movie Air Force
I believe the "Japanese" fighters were P-43 Lancers.
Good old Ed Seversky. Who lost Republic Aviation after violating US neutrality laws with illegal arm sales. There was a similar situation over at Brewster, but that company couldn't be salvaged.
A video on the p-35 would be cool. Lol
Was there a related P-41?
Robert Scott in “God is my CoPilot” talks about taking one for a spin above the Himalayas.
What do the white crosses painted over the USAAF roundel denote on these aircraft? I couldn't help but notice them on some of the aircraft depicted. Were they a temporary marking applied while the aircraft were transported into China? I have never seen this marking on another aircraft.
It seems that applying a marking to indicate that the aircraft is in transit would be a somewhat of a pointless task, as the Chinese would likely repaint the aircraft anyways upon arrival. It could make sense if this denoted that the aircraft were of a nation neutral to the conflict, and therefore painted in high-visibility markings to ward off attacks from belligerent aircraft. However, the US was an active belligerent at this time, and the white cross is not a recognized symbol of the USAAF or other Allied power. Also, I doubt the Japanese would have honored neutrality of a nation supplying the Chinese with weapons anyways (at lease once it entered China). This was only a guess though so please tell me if I'm wrong.
I think that the white crosses over the US star were for exercises in about 1940. I vaguely recall seeing P-40s with similar markings from those exercises. Presumably, the white crosses were for the "enemy" forces, without being too obvious about just who that enemy was meant to be.
I'm not familiar with the White X marking, along with the Red Dot -- Blue Circle -- White Star shown at [5:41]. Anyone have any historical data on these markings?
War games markings in the U.S., I would think.
9.05 ~ "Recce P43s trainers for Lockheed F4s"
Suspect this is reference to a Lockheed Lighning BUT they (all types) seem to carry a P38 designation plus suffixes.
So I'm a bit baffled as to what an F4 of the earlish 1940s was?
“F” would have been a WW2 era photo reconnaissance aircraft.
“R” in that era was “restricted”.
The F-4 was the factory built photo reconnaissance version of the P-38 Lightning.
Actually, Recce Lightnings were designated F-4 and F-5... At least every publication I've read covering them has referred them as such. Always found it puzzling
@@Parocha A lot of aircraft had different factory designations.
The determining factor was often a bit vague if they weren’t actually factory versions. The ground attack version of the P-51 Mustang was the A-36 Apache and the photo reconnaissance version was the F-6.
🙏
👍...Shoe🇺🇸
7:41 what are those markings?
The white crosses and broad white bands were applied to several types of aircraft based in continental USA during the very early war years, for training exercises and war games
@@geoffreyboyling615 Thank you, I was wondering that myself.
@@geoffreyboyling615 Thank you, after years of being a chronic aircraft nut, there are still things that are new!
I can't help but wonder if a derivative of the P-43 would have made a better dive bomber than the SBD.
Holy crap, I'm first.
That’s what your wife said
Thing looks like a beef-up'd CAC Boomerang
Obsolete, not obsolescent. Mini-Jug.
It's a shame the RAAF didn't get more of these and use them as frontline fighters , surely they would have been a better aircraft the our home produced CAC Boomerang
The RAAF was using P-40’s and Spitfires as interceptors by the time these arrived.
The Boomerang was used primarily as a ground attack aircraft as its 20mm cannon could really work over armored vehicles and ships that the 0.50 caliber guns on the other fighters could barely touch.
The Boomerang was essentially a heavily armed cropduster…
@@allangibson2408 haha your not wrong mate.
@@allangibson2408 The Boomer boys of 4 and 5 Squadron often marked targets for RNZAF F4Us, to very good effect, and evidently took out individual sniper positions and shot up any trenches ahead of the troops. They were very deadly crop-dusters.
The older brother or sister is the big.
:)
In pre-war Britain and the US, rigorous quality control seems to have been completely lacking in the design and development of military aircraft. To have so many models reaching the procurement stage with such serious performance deficiencies and safety flaws speaks of great systematic incompetence.
Baby thunderbolt
Strike interceptors do not inspire joy
Hello this aircraft is not American you can prove me erroneous if you can, saludos pavelavietor1 visigoth1 iberian1
the back story sounds very much like support for ukraine, good slava ukraine ,ruzziua will leave, slava ukraine
Two fold! The secret of east origami is two fold
P35 looks a lot like a Zero.