A mid-70s film produced by Grumman Aerospace and Aerolog that highlights the differences between land-based and carrier-based aircraft. Lots of great F-14 Tomcat stuff plus A-6E, F-4, A-7, E-2C, S-3 and more.
My dad had an old copy of this film on VHS when I was a kid growing up. I watched it so much that I would quote lines from it. It motivated whenever I watched it. Eventually, through hard work and a lot of luck I became a naval aviator and flew the Super Hornet (FA-18F). The take-away point is you never know what video, show, movie, book, magazine, photo, song, etc. will be that motivation for a youngster somewhere. If I could shake the hand of the people who put this together I would. To this day, even after my own career flying behind the boat in all kinds of crazy conditions, the scenes from this film often pop into my mind. Thank you for sharing this video. It means the world to me that I can show it to my young sons as an example of motivation.
I liked to watch this on my playlist but the Come-you-mist RUclips censors banned the channel that had this video, so I'm glad there are other copies of it online.
@4:27 That is actually NOT true. The YF-17 was originally designed as a land aircraft, and later modified for carrier use as the F/A-18. But the narrator in this video wouldn't have known that at the making of this film, as the YF-17 and later F/A-18 wasn't developed yet.
@@vidweb1 He has his studio before I was born in the 70s. He worked on various different films. He started as a independent before he worked for Grumman all through the 70s and 80s. I just remembered the studio growing up in the 80s. He might have actually edited this particular film "sea legs" in the 70s. He also worked on films for the F20A.
A carrier based fighter has to be design from drawing #1 as a carrier based fighter. Adding a tail hook, heavier landing gear and, strengthening the frame will not work for a carrier fighter. A carrier fighter design priorities are to use materials that resist rust & corrosion, stength to withstand thousands of carrier take-offs & landing. . . . as well as being being competitive in dogfighting. Watch "Sea Legs", it video explains the major differences between land based and carrier based fighters. ruclips.net/video/nD-fhO6jP_k/видео.html
Everything is mediocre design, just to barely make it work, unsafe, this is because it was privatized and not developed by the US Gov. as it should have been always, that's why the fighters cost so stupidly high prices, greed instead of efficiency: - Computers existed at the time, could have been used to have a better approach, and not only visual, and a better visual reference, that ball sucked - The landing should have been way back on the Carrier - The landing strip longer - The Carrier wider to accommodate a longer strip and more aircrafts on deck with a ramp at the end, with a safety net at the end. - Solving the landing and take off of aircrafts without cables or steam launchers would have made the aircrafts way more useful, powerful and lighter. - The F-14 had a lot of too heavy pieces, that made the aircraft too heavy and big - Aircraft shouldn't accelerate when landing, it's stupid, you get safety nets, and a second net made of hard plastic, flexible but hard, the aircraft would be lightly damaged but recovered and the people safe, minimal loss, always safe landing. But they did the easy way and probably had a great cost in lives and material resources. Missiles are also not efficiently designed, too heavy Again privatizing what the Gov should build is a bad idea, specially in this case.
My dad had an old copy of this film on VHS when I was a kid growing up. I watched it so much that I would quote lines from it. It motivated whenever I watched it. Eventually, through hard work and a lot of luck I became a naval aviator and flew the Super Hornet (FA-18F).
The take-away point is you never know what video, show, movie, book, magazine, photo, song, etc. will be that motivation for a youngster somewhere. If I could shake the hand of the people who put this together I would. To this day, even after my own career flying behind the boat in all kinds of crazy conditions, the scenes from this film often pop into my mind.
Thank you for sharing this video. It means the world to me that I can show it to my young sons as an example of motivation.
Congrats man thank you for your service im from a military family and i love carrier aviation the most
Congrats on following your heart! Wonderful achievement
I liked to watch this on my playlist but the Come-you-mist RUclips censors banned the channel that had this video, so I'm glad there are other copies of it online.
I'm here to say they are the absolute best ~ USS KITTY HAWK CVA-63 1971-73
@4:27 That is actually NOT true. The YF-17 was originally designed as a land aircraft, and later modified for carrier use as the F/A-18. But the narrator in this video wouldn't have known that at the making of this film, as the YF-17 and later F/A-18 wasn't developed yet.
Brought here by the Peninsula Seniors video on the F14 which was terrific. Awesome production and not an iota of woke crap anywhere. Wonderful stuff.
Awesome Video - thanks for sharing!
My father was the film editor for this. He edited it in our house studio we had back in the 80's.
Cool to hear!
Did a great job too!
The film was produced by Grumman in the mid 70s. Your timeline of the 1980s is a little late.
@@vidweb1 He has his studio before I was born in the 70s. He worked on various different films. He started as a independent before he worked for Grumman all through the 70s and 80s. I just remembered the studio growing up in the 80s. He might have actually edited this particular film "sea legs" in the 70s. He also worked on films for the F20A.
Cool vid!... much respect to navy fliers 👍🇳🇿
A carrier based fighter has to be design from drawing #1 as a carrier based fighter. Adding a tail hook, heavier landing gear and, strengthening the frame will not work for a carrier fighter. A carrier fighter design priorities are to use materials that resist rust & corrosion, stength to withstand thousands of carrier take-offs & landing. . . . as well as being being competitive in dogfighting.
Watch "Sea Legs", it video explains the major differences between land based and carrier based fighters.
ruclips.net/video/nD-fhO6jP_k/видео.html
Jackson
Everything is mediocre design, just to barely make it work, unsafe, this is because it was privatized and not developed by the US Gov. as it should have been always, that's why the fighters cost so stupidly high prices, greed instead of efficiency:
- Computers existed at the time, could have been used to have a better approach, and not only visual, and a better visual reference, that ball sucked
- The landing should have been way back on the Carrier
- The landing strip longer
- The Carrier wider to accommodate a longer strip and more aircrafts on deck with a ramp at the end, with a safety net at the end.
- Solving the landing and take off of aircrafts without cables or steam launchers would have made the aircrafts way more useful, powerful and lighter.
- The F-14 had a lot of too heavy pieces, that made the aircraft too heavy and big
- Aircraft shouldn't accelerate when landing, it's stupid, you get safety nets, and a second net made of hard plastic, flexible but hard, the aircraft would be lightly damaged but recovered and the people safe, minimal loss, always safe landing. But they did the easy way and probably had a great cost in lives and material resources.
Missiles are also not efficiently designed, too heavy
Again privatizing what the Gov should build is a bad idea, specially in this case.
..16 years old right?