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 :)
On the topic of seaplane interceptors I have an aircraft request, however it is a fictional one though. The Savoia S.21 from Porco Rosso which weirdly seems not to be based on the actual Savoia S.21 but the Macchi M.33.
Ok I’ve got a huge request because it’s not a traditional video for you. PLEASE make a video on the French Leyat Helicar. Attempt #12 (also haven’t given up on asking for the SU-47 but the Leyat is even more interesting)
My Dad worked at Convair from 1950 until 1982. He was present along with his dept. at the demonstration and witnessed the accident that killed the test pilot. He told us this story many times over the years. There was a party atmosphere for many of the employees and they planned their lunch break to see it.
For those wondering, Convair was bought by General Dynamics in the early 50's, and by the 60's it became the Fort Worth division of GD. In the 90's its aircraft factory was sold to Lockheed-Martin. So the F-102/6, B-58, F-111 and F-16 where all created more or less by the same people.
My grandfather knew the pilot. My grandfather was at NASNI from '41 to '73. Knew many pilots, naval commanders, admirals , congressman, senators, Nixon, test pilots. It was an amazing era. He used to take me to work with him as a kid. Sure couldn't do that nowadays. Lunch at the O Club, watching planes land. Sitting in aircraft in the rework buildings, not really hangars, just big buildings. Worked around there years later as a contractor. Imagine all the things he'd seen in that period.
@@magoid The B-36 was also built in the Ft Worth Government Plant #4 after it had cranked out thousands of B-24s and scores of B-32s. It's amazing that the first flights of the B-36 and the B-58 were only ten years apart.
Fun fact: Because at least one airframe was still in storage in 1962, the Sea Dart was redesignated YF-7A under the 1962 US Tri-Service aircraft designation system.
@@tomdis8637 Actually the museum is still open... Idk how they survived the airbase they were leasing space from's closure. It is a privately run entity that exists on donation money.
The Sea Dart is one of my favorite aircraft because at no point was it ever a truly bad idea, nor were any of the design constraints particularly strange or egregious. And yet, it ends up being an extremely unique and weird aircraft. It also looks really cool, which always helps.
Id still consider the idea of a supersonic seaplane on the side of "egregious and strange design constraints", given how water landings and high speed dont really get along too well. Still ended up as an interesting piece of aviation history though. Gotta give credit where its due.
@@builder396 Sure, but the same could be said for landing on a rolling ship in the middle of the ocean. And we've been doing that as a matter of routine since the 1950s.
Anything short of a partial submission would become vaporized and digested as highly humid air would be. If any actual liquid did somehow reach the hot parts of the turbine it would instantly form a protective vapor barrier between the two and protect it from damage, like being able to dip a wet hand in the oil of a deep fryer at cooking temperature.
I love the Sea Dart. It's absolutely the essence of aerospace engineering in the mid-20th century. "We think we have a need for this odd thing. Also it needs to be a jet. Will it work? No idea, try it!" Happy to see it covered, more people should know about this plane.
Well not invariably. The Saunders Roe A/1 Rex mentions, for instance, survives in a museum in England. But not thanks to officialdom. Rather it was a visionary private collector named Peter Thomas who rescued the A/1...
This is so utterly ridiculous and amazing, you can't help but love it. Fantastic video as always Rex. Always good to see a notification that you uploaded something.
It's it a Surfboard ... it's it a Plane, it's the Sea Dart! I hope you do a video on the Sea Master one day. While the Sea Dart was utterly bonkers, IMHO the Sea Master is one of the most beautiful seaplanes ever built.
Except for the fact that the engines constantly failed, and the plane was replaced by the former Martin Mars, the plane that the seamaster was suppose to replace.
I’m sorry , I confused the Martin seamaster with the convair tradewinds, I saw the brief picture and saw one,and thought the other. The tradewinds mechanics would take bets as to how many engines failed on each flight.
Great video! I remember, as a young lad, leaving San Diego on my way home from Boot Camp. I was in a PSA (Poor Sailor's Airline) 727, and we were taking off from San Diego Intl. I looked out my window, and I saw a Sea Dart, sitting in the water, next to a pier. Classic! I bet that's the same aircraft I saw back in 2016 at the entrance to the San Diego Navy Air Museum (my wife and I got in for free with my Seattle Flight Museum member card. $5 in the jar. Great museum.
Alan, think you and I did Navy boot about the same time (I was there January-April 1966). More I pondered your story about seeing a Sea Dart sitting in the water while taking off from Lindbergh Field, it occurred to me that I saw it, too, but was so excited about going home, forgot all about it until I read your comment.
I was a sophomore in HS in 1952 with a fairly keen interest in military aircraft and remember thinking what a neat aircraft the Seadart was. However, never knew about all the difficulties, until your presentation, with the high speed tests and pilot buffeting. Easy to see bay and sea environments presenting completely different takeoff and landing problems. Interesting presentation, perhaps resources permitting, how about one on the flying boat mentioned in this presentation. 👍 “POGO”was a interesting concept too, but I always thought it too radical to work well! Strange landing a aircraft on it’s tail!
The Sea Dart is one of those aircraft you hoot for so much (because of how cool it was), that you choose to ignore the reasons given for its demise. We wish it should have achieved production, not mattering how impractical it was.
I love the craziness of the Sea Dart. And it was very cool, and a massive surprise a couple years back, to randomly see one on display on the side of the road while winding my way through Pennsylvania! (had no idea that Willow Grove had an aviation museum; much less that they had a Sea Dart)
Always fascinated to understand this aircraft, been trying to see one in real life. Luckily when I went to San Diego, by their Air and Space Museum at Balboa Park has a Sea Dart on display. That plane is massive
Wonderful video. I've always been fascinated by '50s planes and there attempts to answer questions where the questions were no fully understood - like area rule. I've seen photographs of the Sea Darts, but never video, or full explanation of the challenges that they faced. I've always been interested in the USN's attempts at solving its particular problems like high speed flying boats and VTOL aircraft.
My father also worked for convair between 1960 and 63. I learned to drive in one of the parking lots, where I would drive a large circle around one of the Darts where it sat in the middle of the lot.
Ever since I was a kid watching Tail Spin in the afternoons, I've been in love with seaplanes. I've also been in love with the idea of living in a movable house. A boat, a seaplane, even a hovercraft carrier would be awesome. Someday when I don't have land based responsibilities I'll make it happen, but for now it would be quite inconvenient.
Before the Sea Dart was donated to the San Diego Air & Space Museum, it spent years in a storage bay at the back of the General Dynamics Kearny Mesa Plant. I used to enjoy looking at it through the chain link fence.
It’s so futuristic considering the time in which it was produced. I grew up watching Thunderbirds. This plane looks like it could dive deep underwater as well as fly supersonic. I wonder if could have carried missiles as well as the cannons?
I always thought the Sea Dart would look amazing with a "chine" like the SR 71. Such an amazing concept, to bad rich aviation enthusiasts don't revisit this.
My grandfather worked on the sea dart id love to hear more about teh sea dart i remember seeing the one in PA as a kid with him and hearing about how he worked on it.
nice to see the sea dart get some coverage on your channel. indeed the sea dart was the only supersonic flyingboat. the 2nd fastest was the sanders roe SRA-1, clocking in at some 500+ mph.
Yep....I'm the surviving member of the restoration crew for that bird -- we did it when I was either a jr or sr in high school...so 1980 or 81. I was also the youngest on the crew...everyone else was retired from Convair or late in their careers (like my father). I remember Dad giving me a bucket and being sent into the empty engine bay to bail out water....I certainly TRIED to hit him when I started chucking water out the air intakes! As far as I'm concerned...that's MY airplane!
There is one on display in Lakeland Florida at the Florida Air Museum. It is outside and starting to suffer from severe corrosion. I was there last month. They also have a XFY-1 vtol aircraft.
Oh hay! I just saw this plane at an air museum in Florida. The place is called Sun'n fun. They also have the navy's xfv Salmon and a tomcat. If you are down in Florida I recommend visiting, another good museum in Florida is the Valiant air command.
Imagine picking the SeaDart instead of the SeaMaster, which even today would be an extremely capable and valuable aircraft we should consider looking at again.
Interestingly, this wasn't the only experiment with floatplanes that could retract their floats/skis. The Blackburn B-20 was a 1940s twin-engine plane which could retract it's main float upwards to sit flush with the hull. But it was unstable in flight, and the only prototype crashed. Then in 1947, the Sauder-Roe SR.A/1 was a turbojet idea, which could simply pull it's float in a bit. Three were built, but it wasn't reliable enough to be worth pursuing.
Well at the golden age of aircraft, especially jet aircraft, the idea was to “ throw everything at the wall, and see what sticks, the idea of the seaplane was great if all of your airfields were put out of commission, hence the “pogo” aircraft but most were let down by their engines,( pogo,seamaster,Etc) , it seemed if you had an idea, it was obsolete before you built it. This was also the time of the air force becoming separate from the army, and the navy was scrambling for funds to prepare for the red menace. It was later found out that the design of the rear of the aircraft gave it some stealth capability, later to be used in other aircraft. It is now I’m reminded of something a seaplane pilot once said to me, “ in a seaplane,you never land in the same place twice.”
It’s a shame really, there are some fairly basic (these days) alternatives for the ski designs used on the prototypes here, and combined with some wind tunnel redesigns with NACA, this thing could have been both an exceptionally fast interceptor, as well as a decent-handling aircraft on the water. Either way, it was still ground-breaking and one of a kind. Pretty much par for the course for prototypes in this period of rapid development and succession I suppose.
Very interesting. But it's really obvious how impractical the concept was when you consider real world conditions on the open ocean. Something the Navy is well aware of.
This also makes a nonsense of all those fantasy planes/boats you get in action films that transform from one to the other. Both landing on water and taking off from it are fantastically more difficult than most people think. Now imagine how much more difficult it would be on even a moderately rough sea!
Yep...the Navy had more money than brains with this one. No way it could have withstood anything over calm seas. Once you take these things out of the hands of test pilots and put them into nugget pilots the SHTF.
Convair made a lot of pretty extreme aircraft after the war. B-36, Sea Dart, Pogo, Delta Dagger, Delta Dart, Hustler, and the F-16. Convair became General Dynamics. A good number even made it into production.
I was born in 1958 very close to the Willow Grove naval Air station in Willow Grove Pennsylvania. From about age 5 (the 60's through the 2000's) every chance I had I would stop at the gravel parking lot, chain link fence and admire the vintage display, There was a Sea Dart, (as of 4 years ago was still there) A Japanese Float plane (now at the Pacific war Museum in Fredericksburg TX) - note that the sailors and marines of the 60's had a great sense of humor. They placed a manakin in the cockpit with a bandana having the Japanese Meatball on it), I thought that was hilarious. Also the Arada float plane from the German Heavy Cruiser Prinz Eugene. and a German ME-262 Trainor. I took so many pics throughout the years and can't find a single one but the images are burned into my memory forever!
I've very much enjoyed a number of your podcasts, especially of the prototype and test aircraft programs. I'd like to see you do a couple podcasts about the test programs for which the F-84 Thunderjet "Plankwing" was used. There are many tests programs for which various versions were used. Two other F-84 series test programs, the MX-1016 Tip-Tow with EB-29 and two EF-84D Thunderjets were used, and the Project Tom-Tom with JRB-36F and two RF-84F Thunderflashes were wingtip carrier test programs. The operational FICON used B-36 mother ships to carry RF-84K Thunderflash recon aircraft. 25 RF-8F were modified to RF-84K. They were based at Larson AFB and the B-36s and Fairchild AFB in Spokane, Washington. Then there are the two tail-sitters, the Convair XFY-1 Pogl and the Lockheed, XFV-1 "Salmon". I built 1/48 models of both of those when I was a kid, still have them. I also have built 20 1/48 models of Thunderjets, Thunderstreaks, Thunderflashs, and a 1/48 model of the Tip-Tow project that is now on display at the Warkhawk Museum in Nampa, Idaho.
YOOOOOOOOO! The wings of Freedom museum is at a Naval Air Station right near where I grew up. I probably drove past that sea dart once or twice a day for twenty years and had no idea how rare it was. I do remember seeing it and at the start of this video I was like... that thing looks familiar! Let's get some love for Horsham PA!
I just wonder if applying area rule to the Sea Dart would have made a difference. It was a interesting idea but because of the time between creating the concept and building the first was kinda long. Then I’m wondering, why skis? Someone already suggested that maybe if it was designed with a hydroplane hull it would have worked better…. I have another idea, why not build it with hydrofoil landing gear? As it picked up speed it would lift up and out of the water which would mean an easier take off and fewer gyrations for the pilot. Just thinking
On area rule, the F-102 had the same problem. Meant to be supersonic the prototype was limited to Mach 0.98. After redesigning around the area rule it the next prototype made Mach 1.2. Continual work on that airframe, and a new engine, led to Mach 2 performance and a new designation under F-106. Lowering the hull into the water risks injecting water, or worse, into the engine intakes at speed. Skis, or hydrofoils, help get the engines away from sea spray while also giving it a natural positive angle of attack. Better for take off and landing. I imagine limited experience with hydrofoils made it a risky, or unknown, proposition. Or... maybe a concern with sudden drag on landing. Not having the ability to bear the brunt of a splash down like a ski - the airframe may plunge too far into the ocean, overwhelm the airframe, and rip it apart.
I'd love a video of Rutan's ares Project ARES An older Rutan design, recently resurrected and modified for other testing, with two "sons" that are pretty secret
Great video as always! I’m working my way chronologically through your channel and I’m having an excellent time, thanks! This is such a wild concept aircraft and it really looks like a rejected vehicle from the old thunderbirds TV show.
Well, as they say... If you want something that is likely to work while still being BleedingEdgeCrazy... you go to Convair. There was, and is, nobody better at the task.
The Ford Rotunda building seen being revealed by your "pan and scan" beginning at 11:19, is now the San Diego Air and Space Museum. The see Dart is out front in Balboa Park, located almost exactly in line with this view beyond the building on the north east of the structure facing our YF12. We do have a good selection of vintage original and replica WW1 aircraft as well as WW2 and beyond..... My favorite is Raoul Lufbery's Nieuport 11, N1256 for some reason.
As far as I'm concerned, the Dart in San Diego is MY plane....I'm the surviving member of the restoration crew. My father was an engineer on the project.
No different than flying thru a thunderstorm. The J-57 engines on the KC-135A would ingest 5581 pounds of water in under two minutes, for additional thrust.
@@robertheinkel6225 That’s cool but not salt water tho. I lived near this bay and left my bike out on the patio for three months and it surface rusted completely. Not even on the water.
Amazing - if this had come out in April, I would have assumed it was made up! How can a bunch of talented engineers ever have thought this was going to work? They must have been landlubbers to a man. Also (to me at least) amazing that this sort of thing was being done before I was born - and I'm nearly 70! One thing though, as far as I'm aware this is the first of your videos (or certainly one of the first) to feature a jet aircraft. So what happened to the 'engine noise at the start of the videos' debate? I was really looking forward to the sound of a jet starting up!
How could a bunch of talented engineers ever thought this was going to work? Very simple. They were talented engineers. Which is why it did work. It proved repeatedly that it was able to take off and land on water, and that it could go supersonic. Yes, it broke up and crashed. That doesn't make it an absolute flop and a dumb idea. Many great planes have started out with the smoking ruin of a prototype. The B-17, F-14, F-16, F-22, and J39 Gripen come to mind immediately, and there have been many others. The Seadart was a victim of policy change more than any of its own shortcomings. The engineers knew what they were doing, and that's why they thought it would work. With more development it could have made a name for itself.
@@mikearmstrong8483 it only worked (in as much as it did) from relatively calm water. In others words, it couldn't work in real-life situations. So, effectively, it didn't work. Any engineer worth their salt should have known that this had to be able to land on and take off from moderately rough seas. There must have been a wealth of data around about this from seaplane development, so it wouldn't have been difficult to discover how difficult it would be.
@@paulhaynes8045 All seaplanes and flying boats are meant to operate from calm waters. There are precious few ever that have been designed to operate in a sea state as high as 3. It is only a pilot in a desperate situation that puts down on the open sea in anything other than calm. It was standard practice for a recovering ship to maneuver to create a calm zone for a seaplane to land, and flying boats operated out of protected bays. So the Seadart was barely less capable than other seaplanes in this regard.
Did it work ? To come to a conclusion on that, yiou have to take into account what it's intended use was. So... It was intended to be an interceptor. But it could only take off if the sea was calm enough. So if there was an attack when the sea was a bit too rough, the thing couldn't take off and intecept anything. So unless the Russians ( or whoever ) were kind enough to wait until the sea was calm enough for the thing to get into the air ( an unlikely scenario ), then it didn't work. In fact, given the limitations of sea planes and flying boats, I'm surprised anyone ever thought this to be a good idea in the first place. But then, this was typical of the US armed services at the time. The question for them always seemed to be " So, can we do it ? " The question " Should we do it ? " Did not always enter their minds. 🤣
My Grandfather was the senior Naval Aviation photographer and was stationed in San Diego when the Sea Dart and Pogo were being tested. My dad was there with him for some of those tests. I own 8mm film, prints and a lithograph for both aircraft. I'm certain that most of these photos and videos footage were taken by him.
Thank you for this particular video which is very informative. I've the Sea Dart on display and in still photos but knew very little about it. Again nice video, thanks.
I can recall seeing one of these sitting behind the AIMD hangar at NAS Patuxent River when I was stationed there in the last 70s/ early 80s. I thought that it was amazing.
JUNKED! - I was kind of stranded in Patuxant River Naval Air Station in early 1975 for three months. I was supposed to be there for just three days, but thanks to the Navy Way I couldn't get a flight to my next duty station in Spain because it wasn't in the budget for that quarter. Anyway, I went to my three days of schools, spent all my duty hours there fixing the radios I'd learned to fix, and never worked on them again in my entire naval career. Relevant to this video, as I tooled around in my '62 Fairlane, I passed the Sea Dart at least twice a day. It was junked by the side of a road.
Convair had a sister project to this one that doesn't get discussed much. The aim of this project was to develop an aircraft which would land with accuracy, in the smallest spot possible.
Many people don't know the difference between England and The U.K. (aka Britain). In exactly the same way Convair was an American company, Saunders-Roe was a British company. It's aircraft were designed, built and paid for by British people. It is oversimple to _just_ say it was "made in England" and infer it was English. It wasn't. Nevertheless I must commend you Rex, on another excellent video.
@@paulhaynes8045 You are confusing Great Britain with Britain. Great Britain is an island that excludes N. Ireland. Britain is the colloquial name for the UK and includes N. Ireland. 'Britain' is shortened from The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland the same way that The United States of America is shortened to 'America' even though The US is only one of many nations in the Americas. In other words The UK *_IS_* synonymous with 'Britain'.
I've had the pleasure of seeing one of the surviving aircraft at the Wings of Freedom Aviation Museum in Willow Grove, Pa. It is a really pretty aircraft.
One is now displayed outside the San Diego Aerospace Museum next to an Oxcart. It was on my morning bicycle ride for years. The floats were beat up pretty good by taking off from San Diego bay. The damage was left intact for us to see during restoration.
Back in the 90s there was a tv program called Wings. One show was on the sea dart. To be honest I thought the whole ideal was crazy. Anyway at the time I was stationed in New Jersey. On one of my trips about we stopped at a location where they had alot of different kinds. One got my attention because it had skies. It was a sea dart I think. The air intakes were above the cockpit. Since it was in a fenced in area i couldn't get a good look at it. What I did notice was it didn't seem that big compared to fighters I had worked on. It might have been the grass growing around it. It was exciting to actually see such a rare aircraft.
One of these used to sit near some older hangers on NATC Pax River. We used to ride our bikes down there and climb all over it. Don’t know what happened to it as this was in 1978.
I would assume it was intended to operate from atolls or similar protected waters. Any kind of heavy water would be impossible for take offs and landings. Until it was realized supersonic air craft could operate from carriers, something was needed, and trying sea planes was reasonable. If we waited until all kinks are worked out, two bicycle guys would still be trying to get a heavier than air contraption off the ground.
I used to see this actual plane on the grass in the Naval Air Station at Willow Grove, PA. They got funding for a museum building, and the NAS closed, so am not sure what happened to it?
I'd definitely be interested in why the designers chose longitudinal skis rather than perpendicular hydrofoils. Foiling had been around for 50 years by then, and its ability to deal with rougher sea conditions should have been well known. Throwing actual government money at refining them for a plane surely would have ironed out any/most issues.
Ok I’ve got a huge request because it’s not a traditional video for you. PLEASE make a video on the French Leyat Helicar. Attempt #12 (also haven’t given up on asking for the SU-47 but the Leyat is even more interesting)
At 13:13 you mention an "LSD" vessel; besides the fact that it's "LST"; the two boats in the photo are in fact, LCIs, "Landing Craft, Infantry". No way in hell you'd put a tank on something that small. Otherwise, an enjoyable video about a fascinating plane!
![An Often Forgotten Oddity That Served The US Navy | Grumman J2F Duck [Aircraft Overview #40]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7bMOM4OICWs/mqdefault.jpg)
![Britain's First Supersonic Plane | De Havilland D.H 108 Swallow [Aircraft Overview #58]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/p7tZbmK31tY/mqdefault.jpg)
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 :)
Of course now you've mentioned the Saunders-Roe, you'll have to cover it...
On the topic of seaplane interceptors I have an aircraft request, however it is a fictional one though. The Savoia S.21 from Porco Rosso which weirdly seems not to be based on the actual Savoia S.21 but the Macchi M.33.
You should cover the Rockwell XFV-12, it was quite the proposal
Yay! We use both metric and Imperial in the US now!
Ok I’ve got a huge request because it’s not a traditional video for you. PLEASE make a video on the French Leyat Helicar. Attempt #12 (also haven’t given up on asking for the SU-47 but the Leyat is even more interesting)
My Dad worked at Convair from 1950 until 1982. He was present along with his dept. at the demonstration and witnessed the accident that killed the test pilot. He told us this story many times over the years. There was a party atmosphere for many of the employees and they planned their lunch break to see it.
For those wondering, Convair was bought by General Dynamics in the early 50's, and by the 60's it became the Fort Worth division of GD. In the 90's its aircraft factory was sold to Lockheed-Martin. So the F-102/6, B-58, F-111 and F-16 where all created more or less by the same people.
Maybe you dad knew my grandfather. Is your dad still around?
Your father and mine may have worked together...the Sea Dart was one of his projects.
My grandfather knew the pilot. My grandfather was at NASNI from '41 to '73. Knew many pilots, naval commanders, admirals , congressman, senators, Nixon, test pilots. It was an amazing era. He used to take me to work with him as a kid. Sure couldn't do that nowadays. Lunch at the O Club, watching planes land. Sitting in aircraft in the rework buildings, not really hangars, just big buildings. Worked around there years later as a contractor. Imagine all the things he'd seen in that period.
@@magoid The B-36 was also built in the Ft Worth Government Plant #4 after it had cranked out thousands of B-24s and scores of B-32s. It's amazing that the first flights of the B-36 and the B-58 were only ten years apart.
Fun fact: Because at least one airframe was still in storage in 1962, the Sea Dart was redesignated YF-7A under the 1962 US Tri-Service aircraft designation system.
hahaha
A Sea Dart is on display along Rt. 309 at the Willow Grove, PA JRB (closed due to government idiocy).
@@tomdis8637 Make that Rt. 611. Pa. Turnpike exit 343, north on 611.
There was one in Pax River NAS in about 1980. Saw it on the dock going to airshow
@@tomdis8637 Actually the museum is still open... Idk how they survived the airbase they were leasing space from's closure. It is a privately run entity that exists on donation money.
The Sea Dart is one of my favorite aircraft because at no point was it ever a truly bad idea, nor were any of the design constraints particularly strange or egregious. And yet, it ends up being an extremely unique and weird aircraft.
It also looks really cool, which always helps.
Id still consider the idea of a supersonic seaplane on the side of "egregious and strange design constraints", given how water landings and high speed dont really get along too well.
Still ended up as an interesting piece of aviation history though. Gotta give credit where its due.
@builder396 So what you're saying what they needed was a variable sweep wing...
@@builder396 Sure, but the same could be said for landing on a rolling ship in the middle of the ocean. And we've been doing that as a matter of routine since the 1950s.
@@epikmanthe3rd An aircraft carrier doesnt have waves on its runway, does it?
I can't imagine what salt spray would do to the hot parts of the engine. Especially since the early engines used less ceramics and more metals.
Early engines designed for a short service life
They put in a fresh water spray system
Anything short of a partial submission would become vaporized and digested as highly humid air would be. If any actual liquid did somehow reach the hot parts of the turbine it would instantly form a protective vapor barrier between the two and protect it from damage, like being able to dip a wet hand in the oil of a deep fryer at cooking temperature.
@@Nipplator99999999999 where’d u get this lol
Modern engines still use metal, though some bits are coated.
I love the Sea Dart. It's absolutely the essence of aerospace engineering in the mid-20th century.
"We think we have a need for this odd thing. Also it needs to be a jet. Will it work? No idea, try it!"
Happy to see it covered, more people should know about this plane.
I've always been fascinated by Convair's delta wing planes. The F 102 Delta Dagger, F 106 Delta Dart, B 58 Hustler and the F 2Y Sea Dart.
America: "... all the prototypes survive today"
Britain: "... the prototypes were all destroyed for scrap"
Well not invariably. The Saunders Roe A/1 Rex mentions, for instance, survives in a museum in England. But not thanks to officialdom. Rather it was a visionary private collector named Peter Thomas who rescued the A/1...
This is so utterly ridiculous and amazing, you can't help but love it.
Fantastic video as always Rex. Always good to see a notification that you uploaded something.
It's it a Surfboard ... it's it a Plane, it's the Sea Dart!
I hope you do a video on the Sea Master one day.
While the Sea Dart was utterly bonkers, IMHO the Sea Master is one of the most beautiful seaplanes ever built.
I thought the sea dart was a Royal Navy missile system
Except for the fact that the engines constantly failed, and the plane was replaced by the former Martin Mars, the plane that the seamaster was suppose to replace.
I’m sorry , I confused the Martin seamaster with the convair tradewinds, I saw the brief picture and saw one,and thought the other. The tradewinds mechanics would take bets as to how many engines failed on each flight.
That’s what I love about this channel,,,I remember reading about odd planes in the past but forgotten until you bring it up,,,great stuff
Great video! I remember, as a young lad, leaving San Diego on my way home from Boot Camp. I was in a PSA (Poor Sailor's Airline) 727, and we were taking off from San Diego Intl. I looked out my window, and I saw a Sea Dart, sitting in the water, next to a pier. Classic! I bet that's the same aircraft I saw back in 2016 at the entrance to the San Diego Navy Air Museum (my wife and I got in for free with my Seattle Flight Museum member card. $5 in the jar. Great museum.
Alan, think you and I did Navy boot about the same time (I was there January-April 1966). More I pondered your story about seeing a Sea Dart sitting in the water while taking off from Lindbergh Field, it occurred to me that I saw it, too, but was so excited about going home, forgot all about it until I read your comment.
I was a sophomore in HS in 1952 with a fairly keen interest in military aircraft and remember thinking what a neat aircraft the Seadart was. However, never knew about all the difficulties, until your presentation, with the high speed tests and pilot buffeting. Easy to see bay and sea environments presenting completely different takeoff and landing problems.
Interesting presentation, perhaps resources permitting, how about one on the flying boat mentioned in this presentation. 👍
“POGO”was a interesting concept too, but I always thought it too radical to work well! Strange landing a aircraft on it’s tail!
The Sea Dart is one of those aircraft you hoot for so much (because of how cool it was), that you choose to ignore the reasons given for its demise. We wish it should have achieved production, not mattering how impractical it was.
killing the pilot in the front of VIPs when all other weirder stuff succeed is a guaranteed kill to any project ..
I love the craziness of the Sea Dart. And it was very cool, and a massive surprise a couple years back, to randomly see one on display on the side of the road while winding my way through Pennsylvania! (had no idea that Willow Grove had an aviation museum; much less that they had a Sea Dart)
They had some really cool and rare stuff including an me262.
@@erikrhafer6644 the 262 is gone😞
Always fascinated to understand this aircraft, been trying to see one in real life. Luckily when I went to San Diego, by their Air and Space Museum at Balboa Park has a Sea Dart on display. That plane is massive
Also one in Horsham Pennsylvania at wings of freedom air museum.
And it's next to an A-12. Both are in good company!
Wonderful video. I've always been fascinated by '50s planes and there attempts to answer questions where the questions were no fully understood - like area rule. I've seen photographs of the Sea Darts, but never video, or full explanation of the challenges that they faced. I've always been interested in the USN's attempts at solving its particular problems like high speed flying boats and VTOL aircraft.
The engineers during the fifties and sixties were awesome. The technology they pioneered will continue to take us faster, higher and further.
Ahh yes the glorified jet ski. What a wonderful machine!
My father also worked for convair between 1960 and 63. I learned to drive in one of the parking lots, where I would drive a large circle around one of the Darts where it sat in the middle of the lot.
In a Dodge Dart...?🤣🔫
@@JTA1961 Ha. Was actually a 63 root beer matallic American Motors Rambler convertible. Styl'in
Ever since I was a kid watching Tail Spin in the afternoons, I've been in love with seaplanes. I've also been in love with the idea of living in a movable house. A boat, a seaplane, even a hovercraft carrier would be awesome. Someday when I don't have land based responsibilities I'll make it happen, but for now it would be quite inconvenient.
Sea how you are...
Another great episode on this amazing aircraft, keep up the good work mate!👍🏻
Before the Sea Dart was donated to the San Diego Air & Space Museum, it spent years in a storage bay at the back of the General Dynamics Kearny Mesa Plant. I used to enjoy looking at it through the chain link fence.
This looks like a comicbook villain's escape vehicle.
Good point 🎯
Yes, you could easliy imagine Blofeld getting into his SeaDart at the end of a James Bond movie to escape his exploding SPECTRE villan headquarters.
It’s so futuristic considering the time in which it was produced. I grew up watching Thunderbirds. This plane looks like it could dive deep underwater as well as fly supersonic. I wonder if could have carried missiles as well as the cannons?
I always thought the Sea Dart would look amazing with a "chine" like the SR 71. Such an amazing concept, to bad rich aviation enthusiasts don't revisit this.
Thank you for covering this unusual fighter! I have been intrigued by the Sea Dart since I first saw pictures of it.
The world's only supersonic seaplane and also the only supersonic taildragger...
My grandfather worked on the sea dart id love to hear more about teh sea dart i remember seeing the one in PA as a kid with him and hearing about how he worked on it.
One of the test pilots tell about it here from 35:00 min in.
ruclips.net/video/3HoMVP61wNE/видео.html
nice to see the sea dart get some coverage on your channel. indeed the sea dart was the only supersonic flyingboat. the 2nd fastest was the sanders roe SRA-1, clocking in at some 500+ mph.
I think the Martin P6M was quicker than the A/1...
There is one of these on a stick at the Ruben H. Fleet Space Museum in San Diego. It's pretty impressive.
Indeed, as mentioned (and shown) in the video.
Yep....I'm the surviving member of the restoration crew for that bird -- we did it when I was either a jr or sr in high school...so 1980 or 81. I was also the youngest on the crew...everyone else was retired from Convair or late in their careers (like my father).
I remember Dad giving me a bucket and being sent into the empty engine bay to bail out water....I certainly TRIED to hit him when I started chucking water out the air intakes!
As far as I'm concerned...that's MY airplane!
@@samsignorelli saw it in 84, perfect!
There is one on display in Lakeland Florida at the Florida Air Museum. It is outside and starting to suffer from severe corrosion. I was there last month. They also have a XFY-1 vtol aircraft.
Oh hay! I just saw this plane at an air museum in Florida. The place is called Sun'n fun. They also have the navy's xfv Salmon and a tomcat. If you are down in Florida I recommend visiting, another good museum in Florida is the Valiant air command.
Sea Dart, also the name of a Falklands-era British anti-air missile
Imagine picking the SeaDart instead of the SeaMaster, which even today would be an extremely capable and valuable aircraft we should consider looking at again.
Interestingly, this wasn't the only experiment with floatplanes that could retract their floats/skis. The Blackburn B-20 was a 1940s twin-engine plane which could retract it's main float upwards to sit flush with the hull. But it was unstable in flight, and the only prototype crashed. Then in 1947, the Sauder-Roe SR.A/1 was a turbojet idea, which could simply pull it's float in a bit. Three were built, but it wasn't reliable enough to be worth pursuing.
Well, now we know the answer to the age-old question, 'Can a jet ski go supersonic?'
My grandfather worked on the program for that plane! I've also seen the one in Lakeland florida.
He may have worked with my father, then.
Thanks for another fine video my friend....Old Navy flying Shoe🇺🇸
Since you have covered the sea dart, why not have an episode about the martin sea master.
Thanks for a new expression.
I will endeavour to use
“She’ll be right” as often as possible.
Well at the golden age of aircraft, especially jet aircraft, the idea was to “ throw everything at the wall, and see what sticks, the idea of the seaplane was great if all of your airfields were put out of commission, hence the “pogo” aircraft but most were let down by their engines,( pogo,seamaster,Etc) , it seemed if you had an idea, it was obsolete before you built it.
This was also the time of the air force becoming separate from the army, and the navy was scrambling for funds to prepare for the red menace.
It was later found out that the design of the rear of the aircraft gave it some stealth capability, later to be used in other aircraft. It is now I’m reminded of something a seaplane pilot once said to me, “ in a seaplane,you never land in the same place twice.”
It’s a shame really, there are some fairly basic (these days) alternatives for the ski designs used on the prototypes here, and combined with some wind tunnel redesigns with NACA, this thing could have been both an exceptionally fast interceptor, as well as a decent-handling aircraft on the water.
Either way, it was still ground-breaking and one of a kind. Pretty much par for the course for prototypes in this period of rapid development and succession I suppose.
Yeah, I cant fathom why it didnt use a hydrofoil. It would entirely eliminaze wave oscillation.
A beautiful design. Crisp and clean
Just when I think there can't be anything else wacky I'm proved wrong once again.
S-R Princess anyday!
Very interesting. But it's really obvious how impractical the concept was when you consider real world conditions on the open ocean. Something the Navy is well aware of.
This also makes a nonsense of all those fantasy planes/boats you get in action films that transform from one to the other.
Both landing on water and taking off from it are fantastically more difficult than most people think. Now imagine how much more difficult it would be on even a moderately rough sea!
Well, it is probably a bit easier if you are a VTOL.
Yep...the Navy had more money than brains with this one. No way it could have withstood anything over calm seas. Once you take these things out of the hands of test pilots and put them into nugget pilots the SHTF.
@@scottw5315 The Nugget pilots that land aircraft on aircraft carriers? Also why would any sea plane operate in rough seas on purpose?
Make you wanna get on the "bottle"
@@calebemerson9317 WAR
one of the remaining sea darts is on display less than 5 miles from my house. it is visible from the road, i am amazed every time i drive past.
Look at it once for me...
Convair made a lot of pretty extreme aircraft after the war. B-36, Sea Dart, Pogo, Delta Dagger, Delta Dart, Hustler, and the F-16. Convair became General Dynamics. A good number even made it into production.
I was born in 1958 very close to the Willow Grove naval Air station in Willow Grove Pennsylvania. From about age 5 (the 60's through the 2000's) every chance I had I would stop at the gravel parking lot, chain link fence and admire the vintage display, There was a Sea Dart, (as of 4 years ago was still there) A Japanese Float plane (now at the Pacific war Museum in Fredericksburg TX) - note that the sailors and marines of the 60's had a great sense of humor. They placed a manakin in the cockpit with a bandana having the Japanese Meatball on it), I thought that was hilarious. Also the Arada float plane from the German Heavy Cruiser Prinz Eugene. and a German ME-262 Trainor. I took so many pics throughout the years and can't find a single one but the images are burned into my memory forever!
It's so marvelous to see San Diego Bay in the year I was born. Thank you.
This plan was on an episode of Sea Hunt in which Mike Nelson rescued the pilot of the plane after it ditched and sank.
I've very much enjoyed a number of your podcasts, especially of the prototype and test aircraft programs. I'd like to see you do a couple podcasts about the test programs for which the F-84 Thunderjet "Plankwing" was used. There are many tests programs for which various versions were used. Two other F-84 series test programs, the MX-1016 Tip-Tow with EB-29 and two EF-84D Thunderjets were used, and the Project Tom-Tom with JRB-36F and two RF-84F Thunderflashes were wingtip carrier test programs. The operational FICON used B-36 mother ships to carry RF-84K Thunderflash recon aircraft. 25 RF-8F were modified to RF-84K. They were based at Larson AFB and the B-36s and Fairchild AFB in Spokane, Washington. Then there are the two tail-sitters, the Convair XFY-1 Pogl and the Lockheed, XFV-1 "Salmon". I built 1/48 models of both of those when I was a kid, still have them. I also have built 20 1/48 models of Thunderjets, Thunderstreaks, Thunderflashs, and a 1/48 model of the Tip-Tow project that is now on display at the Warkhawk Museum in Nampa, Idaho.
YOOOOOOOOO! The wings of Freedom museum is at a Naval Air Station right near where I grew up. I probably drove past that sea dart once or twice a day for twenty years and had no idea how rare it was. I do remember seeing it and at the start of this video I was like... that thing looks familiar! Let's get some love for Horsham PA!
I just wonder if applying area rule to the Sea Dart would have made a difference.
It was a interesting idea but because of the time between creating the concept and building the first was kinda long.
Then I’m wondering, why skis?
Someone already suggested that maybe if it was designed with a hydroplane hull it would have worked better….
I have another idea, why not build it with hydrofoil landing gear?
As it picked up speed it would lift up and out of the water which would mean an easier take off and fewer gyrations for the pilot.
Just thinking
On area rule, the F-102 had the same problem. Meant to be supersonic the prototype was limited to Mach 0.98. After redesigning around the area rule it the next prototype made Mach 1.2. Continual work on that airframe, and a new engine, led to Mach 2 performance and a new designation under F-106.
Lowering the hull into the water risks injecting water, or worse, into the engine intakes at speed. Skis, or hydrofoils, help get the engines away from sea spray while also giving it a natural positive angle of attack. Better for take off and landing. I imagine limited experience with hydrofoils made it a risky, or unknown, proposition. Or... maybe a concern with sudden drag on landing. Not having the ability to bear the brunt of a splash down like a ski - the airframe may plunge too far into the ocean, overwhelm the airframe, and rip it apart.
@@Xechran
Good point
I was super excited when I saw the thumbnail for this video, hadn't heard anything about the Sea Dart in years!
I read about this aircraft in a U.S. navy magazine in about 92 , it seamed to be the coolest thing I ever heard of.
Glad to see you get some sponsorships my dude. Love your stuff. - Erik H
I'd love a video of Rutan's ares
Project ARES
An older Rutan design, recently resurrected and modified for other testing, with two "sons" that are pretty secret
There is one at the Harold Pitcairn air museum in Willow Grove (actually Horsham) Pa.
Great video as always! I’m working my way chronologically through your channel and I’m having an excellent time, thanks! This is such a wild concept aircraft and it really looks like a rejected vehicle from the old thunderbirds TV show.
It may not have worked, but when you think this was seven years after WW2, it looked almost like a spaceship compared to most aircraft of the era.
True enough...especially next to a "new" car of that period.
Well, as they say... If you want something that is likely to work while still being BleedingEdgeCrazy... you go to Convair. There was, and is, nobody better at the task.
Now this is interesting!
The Ford Rotunda building seen being revealed by your "pan and scan" beginning at 11:19, is now the San Diego Air and Space Museum. The see Dart is out front in Balboa Park, located almost exactly in line with this view beyond the building on the north east of the structure facing our YF12. We do have a good selection of vintage original and replica WW1 aircraft as well as WW2 and beyond..... My favorite is Raoul Lufbery's Nieuport 11, N1256 for some reason.
As far as I'm concerned, the Dart in San Diego is MY plane....I'm the surviving member of the restoration crew. My father was an engineer on the project.
I would think water temperature variations would make this really difficult.
Waves, tidal movements, etc. don’t help.
@@robertewalt7789 And lots of saltwater into the intake.
No different than flying thru a thunderstorm. The J-57 engines on the KC-135A would ingest 5581 pounds of water in under two minutes, for additional thrust.
@@robertheinkel6225 That’s cool but not salt water tho. I lived near this bay and left my bike out on the patio for three months and it surface rusted completely. Not even on the water.
Amazing - if this had come out in April, I would have assumed it was made up! How can a bunch of talented engineers ever have thought this was going to work? They must have been landlubbers to a man. Also (to me at least) amazing that this sort of thing was being done before I was born - and I'm nearly 70!
One thing though, as far as I'm aware this is the first of your videos (or certainly one of the first) to feature a jet aircraft. So what happened to the 'engine noise at the start of the videos' debate? I was really looking forward to the sound of a jet starting up!
How could a bunch of talented engineers ever thought this was going to work?
Very simple. They were talented engineers. Which is why it did work. It proved repeatedly that it was able to take off and land on water, and that it could go supersonic.
Yes, it broke up and crashed. That doesn't make it an absolute flop and a dumb idea. Many great planes have started out with the smoking ruin of a prototype. The B-17, F-14, F-16, F-22, and J39 Gripen come to mind immediately, and there have been many others.
The Seadart was a victim of policy change more than any of its own shortcomings. The engineers knew what they were doing, and that's why they thought it would work. With more development it could have made a name for itself.
@@mikearmstrong8483 it only worked (in as much as it did) from relatively calm water. In others words, it couldn't work in real-life situations. So, effectively, it didn't work. Any engineer worth their salt should have known that this had to be able to land on and take off from moderately rough seas. There must have been a wealth of data around about this from seaplane development, so it wouldn't have been difficult to discover how difficult it would be.
@@paulhaynes8045
All seaplanes and flying boats are meant to operate from calm waters. There are precious few ever that have been designed to operate in a sea state as high as 3. It is only a pilot in a desperate situation that puts down on the open sea in anything other than calm. It was standard practice for a recovering ship to maneuver to create a calm zone for a seaplane to land, and flying boats operated out of protected bays.
So the Seadart was barely less capable than other seaplanes in this regard.
Did it work ? To come to a conclusion on that, yiou have to take into account what it's intended use was. So... It was intended to be an interceptor. But it could only take off if the sea was calm enough. So if there was an attack when the sea was a bit too rough, the thing couldn't take off and intecept anything. So unless the Russians ( or whoever ) were kind enough to wait until the sea was calm enough for the thing to get into the air ( an unlikely scenario ), then it didn't work. In fact, given the limitations of sea planes and flying boats, I'm surprised anyone ever thought this to be a good idea in the first place. But then, this was typical of the US armed services at the time. The question for them always seemed to be " So, can we do it ? " The question " Should we do it ? " Did not always enter their minds. 🤣
@@zednotzee7
Those darn Roo Skees; always so inconsiderate! No wonder we were always going to war with them whenever it got cold.
Love this channel.
My Grandfather was the senior Naval Aviation photographer and was stationed in San Diego when the Sea Dart and Pogo were being tested. My dad was there with him for some of those tests. I own 8mm film, prints and a lithograph for both aircraft. I'm certain that most of these photos and videos footage were taken by him.
They should have mounted the skis at 90deg from where they did. By which I mean a hydrofoil might have given a better ride at high speed on water.
Thank you for this particular video which is very informative. I've the Sea Dart on display and in still photos but knew very little about it.
Again nice video, thanks.
I can recall seeing one of these sitting behind the AIMD hangar at NAS Patuxent River when I was stationed there in the last 70s/ early 80s. I thought that it was amazing.
JUNKED! - I was kind of stranded in Patuxant River Naval Air Station in early 1975 for three months. I was supposed to be there for just three days, but thanks to the Navy Way I couldn't get a flight to my next duty station in Spain because it wasn't in the budget for that quarter. Anyway, I went to my three days of schools, spent all my duty hours there fixing the radios I'd learned to fix, and never worked on them again in my entire naval career. Relevant to this video, as I tooled around in my '62 Fairlane, I passed the Sea Dart at least twice a day. It was junked by the side of a road.
SEA DART LET'S GOOOOO
Convair had a sister project to this one that doesn't get discussed much. The aim of this project was to develop an aircraft which would land with accuracy, in the smallest spot possible.
It was called .....
It was called ....
... and it was called ... THE LAWN DART!!!
Many people don't know the difference between England and The U.K. (aka Britain). In exactly the same way Convair was an American company, Saunders-Roe was a British company. It's aircraft were designed, built and paid for by British people. It is oversimple to _just_ say it was "made in England" and infer it was English. It wasn't. Nevertheless I must commend you Rex, on another excellent video.
The UK isn't synonymous with 'Britain', as it includes Northern Ireland (The United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland).
@@paulhaynes8045 You are confusing Great Britain with Britain. Great Britain is an island that excludes N. Ireland. Britain is the colloquial name for the UK and includes N. Ireland. 'Britain' is shortened from The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland the same way that The United States of America is shortened to 'America' even though The US is only one of many nations in the Americas.
In other words The UK *_IS_* synonymous with 'Britain'.
God sakes, looks like something out of a Thunderbirds puppet sci-fi Gerry Anderson episode.
I've had the pleasure of seeing one of the surviving aircraft at the Wings of Freedom Aviation Museum in Willow Grove, Pa. It is a really pretty aircraft.
Done a couple of those 3d paper models of this aircraft always loved building the unusual aircraft
One is now displayed outside the San Diego Aerospace Museum next to an Oxcart.
It was on my morning bicycle ride for years.
The floats were beat up pretty good by taking off from San Diego bay. The damage was left intact for us to see during restoration.
Not sure about the damage....I thought we tried to repair that during restoration in the early 80s (I'm the surviving member of the restoration crew)
Back in the 90s there was a tv program called Wings. One show was on the sea dart. To be honest I thought the whole ideal was crazy. Anyway at the time I was stationed in New Jersey. On one of my trips about we stopped at a location where they had alot of different kinds. One got my attention because it had skies. It was a sea dart I think. The air intakes were above the cockpit. Since it was in a fenced in area i couldn't get a good look at it. What I did notice was it didn't seem that big compared to fighters I had worked on. It might have been the grass growing around it. It was exciting to actually see such a rare aircraft.
They came so close to actually building them I saw the one in PA it was so small
But so futuristic looking
One of these used to sit near some older hangers on NATC Pax River. We used to ride our bikes down there and climb all over it. Don’t know what happened to it as this was in 1978.
I wonder what kind of shocks were fitted on the skis and if they couldn't have fitted variable compression models.
"he didn't feel like a kitten trapped in a washing machine" -lol
The Seaplane Striking Force, was actually a good concept. Flexiblilty, dispersion, and the ability to attack.
I saw this plane in person in Pennsylvania as a boy in the 1970s on a family trip. I still have the pix at my dads house
Would this concept work with a hydrofoil that cuts through the chop more smoothly, and possibly held much higher above the waves?
I would assume it was intended to operate from atolls or similar protected waters. Any kind of heavy water would be impossible for take offs and landings. Until it was realized supersonic air craft could operate from carriers, something was needed, and trying sea planes was reasonable. If we waited until all kinks are worked out, two bicycle guys would still be trying to get a heavier than air contraption off the ground.
First video of this ! I have seen ! Only photo’s in in books previously
How about a video on the Privateer?
I used to see this actual plane on the grass in the Naval Air Station at Willow Grove, PA. They got funding for a museum building, and the NAS closed, so am not sure what happened to it?
3:00 to start the video
I'd definitely be interested in why the designers chose longitudinal skis rather than perpendicular hydrofoils. Foiling had been around for 50 years by then, and its ability to deal with rougher sea conditions should have been well known. Throwing actual government money at refining them for a plane surely would have ironed out any/most issues.
this jet its shape and over all design reminds me of retro sci-fi starships. too bad looking cool or rule of cool never meant it functions in reality
love to know more about the R3Y tradewind
Ok I’ve got a huge request because it’s not a traditional video for you. PLEASE make a video on the French Leyat Helicar. Attempt #12 (also haven’t given up on asking for the SU-47 but the Leyat is even more interesting)
Can you please do a B47 video?
At 13:13 you mention an "LSD" vessel; besides the fact that it's "LST"; the two boats in the photo are in fact, LCIs, "Landing Craft, Infantry". No way in hell you'd put a tank on something that small. Otherwise, an enjoyable video about a fascinating plane!