FIREBALL: A Piston Engined Carrier Fighter With A Jet In Its Tail
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 ноя 2023
- From the cockpit forward, the Ryan Fireball is a late war piston engined fighter. The back half, however, is that of an early post war jet. Designed by a small company who'd never built a combat aircraft, you might think that it would be confined to the test bench, but in fact it entered production and saw some squadron service.
You might also think that a plane like this would be useless. It wasn't. In many ways it was the best performing piston engined fighter that the US Navy ever deployed. But it was also a technological dead end that did little for the long term fortunes of the Ryan Corporation.
Rounding off my series on the first batch of US Navy jet fighters, here is the story of the unheralded Ryan Fireball. I hope you enjoy it. Not the easiest one to research, but I got there in the end.
I don't know about you guys but I think the Fireball is one helluva good looking aircraft. Especially considering her experimental nature and the relative inexperience of her maker, Ryan.
And the name is baller.
If I had unlimited money for a plane just for amusement, something close to the fireball is what I would want. Just with fully modern bells and whistles. And probably jet electric hybrid, instead of a radial. Modern materials, fly by wire, all that's fun stuff. While still keeping a distinctly world war II fighter shape.
@@jtjames79
"Electric hybrid instead of a radial?"
@@stickiedmin6508 in this imaginary airplane the turbine is running the electric motors, with batteries for turbo boost.
I would also go with counter rotation, with one regular propeller, add a ducted fan where the radial would go, so it still looks like a radial.
I want it to look cool and be very low maintenance. Assuming I had Elon money. Just to see the looks on people's faces when I go to fly in.
@@jtjames79
I didn't know such things existed. Are planes flying with them now?
@@stickiedmin6508 and since it's imaginary, swing wings and active flow control. For supersonic stability in "thunder screech mode" (supersonic propeller).
I've been loving this little run of videos on the mid-late 1940s, first gen jet fighters. Definitely a ton of fascinating designs and ideas in that little period of experimentation and development.
Another outstanding video; they always make Fridays that much more enjoyable!
Same
Totally agree. Nothing like getting off work and seeing a new Not a Pound vid in the feed.
I knew a fellow, Irv Wischmeyer, who worked on the Fireball.
What about a pulse or ram jet at the back and an outrunner ev at the front. Get up to speed using the prop, then light up the pipe.
This is the first in-depth study I've seen about this plane. I had seen mentions, but considered it a marginal kluge.
Watching this video, I now think of it as a very good first step for the Navy, given the available technology.
P-59 AiraComet P-39 AiraCobra but otherwise very informative
In 1965 I reported to NAS North Island (San Diego). Much to my surprise a Fireball was serving as a 'gate guard'. From a distance it looked less than 'pristine'. By late '67 it been removed, hopefully to a more protected environment.
Over the years I guess I have wondered 'now did Ryan get a Navy fighter contract?' Now I know. Thank you!
I think Planes of Fame has the only Fireball left now. I have no idea if it’s the same one you saw
For a combined piston/jet experimental plane it is quite goodlooking
You can see one of these in a museum in Ontario Ca. Also sits an Me-262 and many other WWll aircraft, and more! A museum worth seeing!
Planes of Fame
@@K4rt80y Yes, I couldn't come up with the name. Super cool museum!
Hi, I'am a former docent at that museum and for anyone who wants to go there it's called planes of fame and its actually in chino California at the chino airport. And just a small tidbit the ryan fireball that they have is actually the only one still in existence also we dont have a Me-262 and the last time we had one was in the late 80s or early 90s so I'm sorry if you wanted to see it but it's not there. But as a side note if you did want to see that 262 it is in Paul Allen's collection living in great conditions. Cheers😊
@@VELOC113 Thank You yes it was many years ago when I saw the Me-262 there. How could ever let that thing go? None the less your museum is worth even travelling to from out of state to see as it is very impressive even without the Me-262. I went there for your Hellcat as I was R/C modeling one at the time. There's so much more to see at your museum, totally impressive and Thank You for all of your work. Robert
What I like about your presentation is that that films and stills of the planes that your talking about match the correct association. Other channels will show completely different examples of what is discussed. Thanks
Yes! That drives me crazy!
Like the Dark Docs/Dark Skies/ Dark Seas channels smh they Are TERRIBLE with that mess.
He did use some F8F footage as he talked about the Fireball, but at least that plane was tangentially related.
Your channel continues to be fascinating. I had never heard of this revolutionary aircraft.
Ryan had produced many aircraft including my father’s Navion. N4455K was its ID #.
@@davidmurphy8190 And that Navion is *another* rather neat looking Ryan Aeroplane few have ever heard of.
I've been an aviation buff my whole life and I don't know how this aircraft escaped my attention. Thanks for sharing this content.
I recognized the FIREBALL from a recognition booklet I was given as a 5-year old in 1959.
Another excellent video on a forgotten aircraft... great work...
Worth mentioning is that there were two aircraft companies named Ryan, this one was "Ryan Aeronautical", not to be confused with "Ryan Airlines", builder of the Spirit of St. Louis. This used to confuse me, when I was growing up, I assumed they were the same outfit, but apparently, they were different entities started by the same guy named Ryan. It's still confusing to be honest.
Hybrids rarely work. The window between one system and another are very short. Piston engines with rockets and jets fell into that window, but the jets got better fast and the rockets were far too dangerous. I recall reading some speculative fiction from Newt Gingrich that extolled the WW2 advantages of early rocket engines while utterly failing to consider the horrible downsides (corrosion, short duration, weight, toxicity, unreliability, volatility, etc).
Back in this time frame they didn't have computers, or programs to tell them if something work or not. If it didn't you simply went back to the drawing board. The P-59 is good example. The plane was designed & built in the US, while the British engines were secretly flown over from the UK in the Bomb Bay of a B-24. The plane (tested here where I live) didn't live up to its promise so it was parked after only 12 or so units were built and plane maker Bell went off into rocket powered planes.
Test pilots in those days needed a courage that is scarcely believable especially with today's comparative safety measures
Oh nice, another sharp interesting video about airplanes. Quickly becoming one of my favorite channels.
Thank you for this informative video; as a geologist, I appreciated the parallel to the Cambrian explosion but a jet powered Trilobite...
Hey, on Tau Cygnus 4 the jet powered trilobite revolutionized naval warfare. The rival MiG Sea Scorpion is nowhere near as fast or maneuverable. Though I'm still trying to figure out why there is a design bureau named MiG on 7 known planets.
I like it 🙂@@mikearmstrong8483
PT-22 may be the greatest primary trainer ever. Honest, strong, wonderful landing gear, extremely slow turning Kinner R-55/56 hitched to a wooden fixed pitch prop with quite a bit of pitch. The result was a combination that would prepare you for the torque of high powered fighters. One learns to lead with right rudder. A simple loop could be quite challenging over the top. Red line of 197mph could be arrived at quickly simply by a botched aileron roll. Built to 9g positive and 9g negative tended to keep even the most ham-handed pilot out of trouble.
I could go on forever about this airplane. It taught me so much.
Cruise rpm of 1650, max under 2000.
One example of what this airplane could teach:
My friend in the front seat was flying. We had been up taking turns scaring each other. Heading back to the airport, my friend racked it into a nose low turn to the right. As he hauled back on the stick, the turn began to steepen. Finally he put both hands up in the air signalling
"You got it". I just laughed, eased the stick forward and unstalled the wing. He made the mistake of dragging top aileron as he loaded up the turn. That's always a no-no.
In any airplane, but in this one it's definitely a learning moment. By the way, my friend in the front seat was not a low time pilot.
Love it, woke up early again and am treated with another great vid from one of my new favorite creators on YT. Keep it up bud, you will blow up soon.
Loving this content om these very early jets and jet/prop combo planes. Keep up.the awesome work.
Excellent video, you've certainly changed my mind about this quite underappreciated aircraft that even I had initially brushed under the rug!
I'll also mention, for 10:51 transonic compression was a growing issue, especially in testing, as higher performance 400 mph fighters really hit the scene. Grumman test pilot Corwin "Corky" Meyers shares his experience encountering the phenomenon during Hellcat dive limit testing thoroughly and covers the subject pretty well in Naval Fighters Number 92: Grumman F6F Hellcat, which he co-authored alongside good ol Steve Ginter, one of the series' long time authors. Many test pilots and fighter pilots would lose their lives when controls locked up in full-power dives without explanation, as the concept was poorly understood by most at the time, and when answers were found by physicists and those investigating the phenomena, for whatever reason warning wasn't ever really given to pilot flying operationally beyond giving dive limits for certain angles or adding airbrakes (in the case of the P-38) among other features as far as I can tell. They go a bit further into it in the book, which I can't recommend enough not only as a deep admirer of the Hellcat, but big fan of the Naval Fighters series- it also brings me great joy seeing others pick up entries from it not just to learn, but also to cite for videos like this. Keep up the good work and quality content!
Cracking channel, many thanks 👍
Point of order: Ryan had produced 'an aircraft of note' before the ST series: The NYP achieved some success in the hands of it's owner-pilot.
aka, Spirit of St Louis
Good sir,
You humbled me, there I was thinking this was only some obscure 1 off test bed, but it was a fully operational and a competent fleet fighter.
Thank you for the content.
Starting at 21:09 in this video:
I just realized the main landing gear retracted into the wheel wells _across_ the wingfold hinge lines.
I am not sure if any other US Navy fighters were ever configured that way.
nice info on the first aircraft carrier landing ! It looks a lot like a Fennec
Nice - haven’t heard that name in decades, when I restored a couple T-28s.
Really love the shots of Lindberg field. I was slightly confused about the background until I realized that, that footage is before Hwy 5 had been built. Would love to have spend a couple of months in 1940's San Diego.
The turbojet powered Ohka 42 did have the longer range than the rocket powered Ohka 22 that the US Navy was worried about…
But like the Fireball, the war ran out before it was deployed.
An actual landing on Japan would have dragged a lot of the odder aircraft in, like the fully carrier capable versions of the North American P-51 Mustang and B-25 Mitchell (and possibly the early FJ-1 Fury).
ya the larger midway carriers would have been ready for Downfall which would have allowed some interesting new aircraft to be used, though long range p51s could have probably been launched from one of the captured islands
@@AsbestosMuffins Or from the Midway class carriers… (Naval variants of both the P-51 and the B-25 were carrier certified in 1944).
The Ryan FR-1 Fireball would also have been operational in late 1945.
These early jets and especially mixed power aircraft are always quite interesting to me
Another absolutely fascinating, and well produced, video! I knew nothing of this type. Thank you for widening my knowledge.
Reminds me of the B-36, also with a combination of props and jets.
It was originally built with pushers only. It was a bit anemic, so the jets were added later for additional power.
Ryan, most famously, created "The Spirit Of St. Louis", for aviator Charles Lindbergh.
Considering that modern jet turbines use specific fuel, which is much like kerosene. Piston aviation engines usually use gasoline, as far as I know.
Did the Fireball (Scary name for an airplane!) have different fuel tanks for the different engines?
Some jet engines have been run on gasoline, but temps are higher.
Interesting question and I don’t know, but I do know jets can happily combust anything that’ll burn!
They fed both engines the same grade of AVgas to keep it simple :)
Good work! Also thank you for making it longer than 15 minutes. This was it does not feal like a brief overview.
Thank you for continuing to produce content on little known military aircraft history. I am looking forward to more.
I've made the kit that boxart comes from.
1/72 Special Hobby. Not an easy kit of a unique subject.
Great vid on a plane I’ve never heard of. I love this channel. So refreshing ❤
You are a great story teller. With my short attention span I usually fast forward any video over 15 minutes long but you keep my attention clear to the end. I knew nothing about the Fireball, now I know a lot.
You should do a video about the F-11-1F upgraded variant that boasted J79 turbojet engine(can be further upgraded with Rolls-Royce Avon), 4 sparrows semi active radar homing missiles and AN/APQ-100 radar. It was fast enough to reach Mach 2 and has the best maneuverability only to be rivaled by the F-5A.
There was only two problems with the F11F-1. First, it had no range. Second, Lockheed. I was shocked to see how utterly corrupt the procurement process was in foreign nations during the 1960s. Germany was so burned by the F-104G that they have it as unofficial policy to never buy another American fighter jet. Minoru Genda, one of the men behind the planning of the 7 Dec. 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, was in charge of the Japanese Air Self Defense Force. He was bribed to buy the F-104J instead of the F11F-1. Criminal. Pure criminal.
Actually, barely over mach 1. And I have never seen anything that indicated it was more maneuverable than an F-5. If you can cite any reference, I will stand corrected.
@@mikearmstrong8483 Grumman shoehorned in a J79 instead of that gawd-awful J65. Imagine something like an F-104 but with the ability to turn. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F11F-1F_Super_Tiger
I love this channel. I may have seen a micro-brief reference to this aircraft before but as usual on "Not a Pound..." an enjoyably informative vid on an aircraft that is obscure as can be in this case, not just relatively forgotten. Well done again mate!
Ryan had also designed and built a little plane called The Spirit of St. Louis.
Different Ryan.
@@stickiedmin6508 is it not the same Ryan Aeronautical of San Diego? If not, what are the two different companies?
@@markrozenberg7959
The same guy (Ryan) originally founded both of the companies.
He and a partner founded the first one, but he (Ryan) had sold up his share and moved on by the time the company (which kept the name) started working with Lindbergh.
Later on, Ryan founded the _second_ company which went on to build the Fireball.
I wasn't quite right - it _was_ the same Ryan behind each of the two different companies, but he _didn't_ actually have anything to do with The Spirit of St. Louis.
There is a museum downtown Glen Rose, Texas on the square where a small section is set aside detailing the pilot who is from Glen Rose who did make that first jet-powered landing and later the first jet-powered take off from an aircraft Carrier in the Fireball!!! 🤠👍
I appreciate hearing how your delivery has improved. It's been a fun ride so far, watching this channel grow and improve. :)
"Fireball" miiiiight not have been the best name for a warbird, given the connotations and such. Most pilots don't want to end up in a fireball, after all.
This was always a cool plane to me, side note there is one of these planes at a museum in chino California, the place is called Planes of Fame and its the only airfame of the type still in existence so if you want to be able to see it in person, the only place is at Plane's of Fame in chino California. Enjoy your time there!
Excellent video. Really appreciate your research and presentation.
Excellent content, writing, research, video & subject. Well done sir.
You do great work
I read a story about it win I was a teenager , they just built over I think 500, hundred put some on a aircraft carrier &was send it to the war fight Japan ,then bomb drop war ended ,planes junked,😢😢😢 jf.
I heard that too. Probably read the same book as a teen years ago also. Lol have a good day
If you squint and turn your head to the side, it almost looks like a Trojan from the front. Great video, I really enjoy your content.
Beautiful aircraft! But the P-59 was the AiraCOMET, not the Airacobra as was stated. The Airacobra name went to the P-39, an unusual WWII fighter with a car door-style hatch. Provided critical fighter support in the first year of the war in the Pacific.
He said "Airacomet".
In fairness, originally I thought he said the P-39’s moniker.
@@lancerevell5979 At 1:04 I too heard Airacobra.
This is undoubtedly the best video on this aircraft anywhere. The Fireball is obscure, historically marginalized, and had a number of design flaws. But I've never understood until today just how capable this aircraft was. Really first-rate presentation.
I must say, though the Fireball has always made me uncomfortable. Looking at it on the ground in profile, knowing there is a jet engine in the fuselage _entirely_ behind the main landing gear, seeing it sitting there slightly nose-up, on its tricycle landing gear with a nose-wheel that looks like it's only just touching the ground, I have the distinct impression that the plane is about to tip back on its tail, and a good push up on the engine cowl would put the tailpipe on the ground.
Ryan Aircraft ought to be given credit though, for doing so much in such a short time. A fascinating plane from a fascinating era.
Fabulous narrative. A gosh darn cool airplane.
Excellent!!
I was surprised when I know about the existence of this plane, and once again, by how well it proved to be, despite their own problems
Now I want to see this added to game like War Thunder, so people will know and appreciate this more
What would people “know” from a cartoon airplane game? 🤔
@@annoyingbstard9407
Well, they'd know the thing had actually _existed._ That's a start.
Certainly more than they'd known about it before - no need to be a snob.
Well done lots of info that i had never herd.
Ty, good story, w details
Excellent
exellent as usual 👍
Well done.
Very informative.
Best channel very interesting and informative and fascinating all at the same time! . It would be great if you can do a program on the Falklands air war. I would like to hear your view on Argentine fighter tactics. They should have used boom n zoom tactics against the Sea harrier as their delta wing was optimised for high altitude combat.... just my opinion
As you said. It would’ve been interesting to see jet versus jet compact if the war had dragged on at least another year or two between the allies and Germany and or Japan.
Nice metaphoric use of “Cambrian explosion“ as reference to the beginning of the jet age
Never heard of this one, but hats off to Ryan for turning in such a good job. I wish they had been working in GB! They might have thought about a more confidence inspiring name mind..., I hope one of them was "XL-5"
1. Ryan's most aircraft of note is The Spirit of St. Louis flown by Charles Lindberg. 2. This aircraft and its issues with rivets led to innovation in rivet techniques and materials. 3. I know it sounds hair brained but, when I was in the Navy I used to hang out in base libraries and I read an account of a detachment of Fireballs sent to the North Pacific and engaged in one air to air battle with Japanese. No wins or losses were noted, and the only thing of note was seeing Japanese pilots freak out at airplanes with the prop stopped as they flew by, and then gained altitude and turn away.
Why would the Cyclones be stopped in combat??
The first time I heard of this plane was in a book called "World's Worst Aircraft", and both reading its entry there and also doing more research on the plane, I always thought that it was unfair as the main issue for it was the same as many aircraft that were designed in the interwar period: Rapidly advancing aviation technology making it obsolete before it ever had a chance to shine, and the same issues of latewar designs: The war ended before it could see any action and prove itself
Ryan may not have made a Navy aircraft nor a fighter before the Fireball, but they DID build "The Spirit of St. Louis" which carried Charles Lindbergh across the Atlantic, solo...
A good follow-up to this aircraft would be the Ryan DarkShark
The XF2R-1 and -2 Dark Shark. T31 turboprop driving a 4-blade propeller, instead of the R-1820, and the J31 turbojet in back. With the -2 having a J34 in back. 497 mph at sea level.
Promoting this aircraft to number 1 in my fantasy aircraft build an fly list 😃
Just a quick note that US navy and pretty much all other navy's do wave offs to the pilots left not right BECAUSE the island is in the way ;)
I'm still discovering airplanes. Love it.
I've always been fascinated by mixed-power planes like the Fireball and the XP-81. Have you considered doing a video on the latter?
Are you going to cover the later XL-5 variant?
Gerry Anderson. I had a model kit of it, many many years ago!
The Fireball did have nice lines -- sort of like a T-28 Trojan trainer. And yeah -- it was a good idea for a brief window in time. The one real flaw I can see is its fragility, which for a carrier fighter is a problem.
NIcely done.
Brilliant! Never heard of her, what a fascinating subject. I remember seeing a land-based piston/jet hybrid, I think it had a scoop on the dorsal fuselage behind the cockpit, but I can't remember what it was, maybe someone here knows?
The XP-81?
Perhaps the Curtiss XF15C?
The piston/jet prototype did a lot better than the other experimental prototype.... The one with a propeller in the front and tail feathers in the back.
Great video. The planes shown making carrier landings at 15:20 appear to be Bearcats instead of Fireballs as they don’t have the nose landing strut.
A better assesment than the books would gave you believe.
"The test pilot's life was a precarious one in this period," he said, while holding Chuck Yeager's beer.
A rare and high honour indeed, to be allowed to hold Chuck Yeager's beer...
Ryan also built the "Spirit of St. Louis" that Lindnerg flew solo across the Atlantic.
The single surviving Fireball in the world is at the Planes Of Fame Museum in Chino, CA.
My Father kept checking out a book from the Library Called Flattops and Fledglings the History of The US Navy Aircraft Carriers from Langley to Nimitz it sits on My book case as I purchased a copy but the Fireball is in there but it was mainly on the ships not so much the Aircraft for that I Recommend the The History of the US Fighters.
Quite interesting.
Fireball? Sounds like a Gerry Anderson show. Thanks for the aviation history!
Fireball XL5
"Fireball is GO!" 😂
It is an unusually charming aircraft, even if it was an unsuccessful branch of aviation design.
I do believe that is Alexander Lippisch at 3:45.
VERY well done - thank you !
So it's like drs or push to pass for a slow piston fighter?
I'd call this plane tactically useless. However they probably gained some valuable learnings for the jet fighters to come.
Thank you for increasing my knowledge of the Ryan Fireball. In the comments of an earlier video I asked about the Fireball. I saw one in a San Diego museum and I think I saw one in the Pensacola naval aviation museum.
Even though I read encyclopedia entries on the Fireball and saw one or two on static display, your video made me realize that the airplane was in squadron service prior to the end of World War Two--I didn't realize that it almost reached the fighting fronts before the war ended. Jet power was a new frontier. At least a double squadron's worth of Fireballs were needed to test the concept and work out jet engine logistics. Piston engine fighters have different safe angles of approach than do jet engine fighters and the Fireball had jet blast, jet intake, propeller disk and prop--wash hazards. Tricycle landing gear was necessary with the jet engine and I think that the Ryan Fireball was the first operational American carrier fighter with tricycle landing gear. It is perhaps better that the lightly-build Fireball didn't see combat service because Navy and Marine pilots were used to very rugged airplanes such as the Wildcat, Corsair and Hellcat--especially when these three were flying Close Air Support missions.
Pre-war carrier groups had a mix of torpedo bombers (typically 15), scout and dive bombers (total of 36), and fighters (an inadequate 18 to 21). By war's end the fighter-bomber had become two squadrons totaling 54 with a single dive bomber squadron (18) and a single torpedo bombing squadron, plus miscellaneous aircraft that might include a detachment of night fighters. More than doubling the fighter squadrons at the expense of displacing a dive bomber/scout bomber squadron meant that the fighters had to pull double duty as bombers and as fighters. Pre-war the dogma was that fighters were defensive weapons that protected the carrier group from air attack or might protect a strike force from enemy defensive aviation--there were enough fighters to do one of those two missions but not enough to pull both missions at the same time. Radar was still new in 1942 and the communication protocols had to be worked out. The reason for the ratio of 2 or 3 bombers for each fighter was that the bombers would strike targets ashore and sink enemy ships--but fighters couldn't. Wars are not won by defenders. Late war with the Kamikaze menace and potential that future enemies would use robot bombs like the Germans did in the Mediterranean led to making fleet defense a higher priority than carrier strikes. The Fireball was in and out of fleet service before Crossroads and the atomic bomb tests against warships, but the limits of the 5"/38 dual purpose guns in the anti-aircraft role and the ineffectiveness of the 20mm anti-aircraft gun on even lightly-built Japanese trainers in the Kamikaze role was spurring development of surface-to-air guided missiles and to a CAP that extended the air umbrella out from perhaps a dozen miles away from the carrier to a hundred miles. Do the math and figure out how many more fighters were needed to fill in all that empty space. Flying radar stations were being developed to extend coverage farther out than the theoretical 130 miles (less if the enemy aircraft came in at wave-top level) to more than 300 miles--and being capable of spotting those low-flying intruders. The CAP fighters had to be able to vector into position in this airspace rapidly, especially if the robot bombs could be launched at carriers from distances of 20 or 60 or 150 miles.
It is a shock to most Americans to learn that the US Navy has always been the high-tech military branch, more technical than even the Air Force or the new Space Force. Air bases and space control centers are sited on Mother Earth. Try using a submarine's head sometime--you may need help if you haven't been trained to safely take a crap on those underwater warships. There are few landmarks at sea.
The Fireball was more important than I thought, and I should have known better--I was an avionics tech with the Marines and spent eight months working on a helicopter carrier.
Thank you, that was really interesting.
this is a cute plane. does it have coffee cup holder and stereo system?
Did it have 2 different gas tanks ?
Well scripted video. Good job.
Just querying if the carrier island is on the right wouldn't one turn left on a wave off?. Not sure I understand
The early jet engines had a problem of very low tatic thrust need to take off. So a juet might have more trouble on takeoff from a carrier than landing. Sure there were catapults but not many and slow compared to an unassisted takeoff.
IIRC the Nakajima Kikka was being considered for the "Special Attack" role, would the Fireball have been a suitable option to use against this land based jet aircraft? US Navy squadrons change their numbers and designators depending on the aircraft used and assigned carriers etc. Thus, sometimes the only way to trace a unit history is through its badge, which is fine so long as someone in authority doesn't decide to change the badge.
With a speed of just 404mph, the fireball would have been overhauled by even late japanese piston fighters like the ki-84
Ryan's only work of notes was producing the PT 19? You forgot about the Spirit of St Louis.
FYI the P59 was the Airacomet not Airacobra that was the P39
Bearcat meets Trojan and had an attractive love child that turned out to be athletically gifted.
I know I’ve seen the guy inside the NACA wind tunnel (06:55 and yes, I said it like NASA) on other docs featuring different aircraft, so I wonder if he worked there. If I could pick any job, I mean ANY, I’d go back in time and work for NACA, secure in the knowledge that aircraft technology was going to EXPLODE!!
I get the feeling the fireball would have been a real rocket with a bit more power. Say, a Wright R-2600 maybe.
I’ll add this to my list things that we could have gotten if the invasion of Japan went ahead.