Nicely spotted! 8:55 Perhaps someone knows something about these specific airframes? I assume the picture was taken in the US?

Not surprising that the Naval Air Test Center NATC would want to evaluate these advanced aircraft.

The state of RI and the town of North Kingston screwed the Quonset air museum over. We had a respectable collection of planes and other historical artifacts. The powers that be felt the naval aviation history of RI was not relevant and was unworthy of any support. I was a member and volunteer there for 20 years. We did keep the XF15C inside when we had it. The Bradley air museum is fantastic. I loved it!!

You must be pretty old, William Holden?

@@life_of_riley88 - You must be pretty young, education? : )

@@loddude5706 35 years old, 8th grade education

@@life_of_riley88 69yrs old, IQ of pond life : )

@@loddude5706 Cheers! I've always been more of a William Powell man myself, but hey, us old souls gotta stick together 🙂

I am intimately familiar with this specific plane. It was the third and last of the XF-15Cs, also the very last airframe ever built by Curtiss for the Navy. I helped disassemble it when the Army Corps of Engineers delivered it by barge to Davisville, RI, helped tie it down and flag it to go over the road to Connecticut on a trailer originally custom-built by Kaman for their helicopters, pulled by a Mack that was formerly with Pratt & Whitney. We had a shortage of flagging material, but the RI State Trooper was ok with the three dark red rags tied onto the extremities. Outer wing panels and the vertical and horizontal stabilizers were removed for the trip. Back then I seem to remember the Naval Aviation Museum having a policy of collecting/displaying only types that saw squadron service, this despite there being a purely experimental Douglas Skystreak parked outside their original building which was essentially a glorified shack, thus making this plane available to the privately run Bradley Air Museum. Anyway, I eventually put the new, present coat of Navy dark sea blue paint on it after a good cleaning and prep and replicated the markings in a most detailed way. The ORIGINAL paint is still underneath. I chose to keep it's last scheme because it would be historically correct with any modifications that might have been done to the plane during it's service life. It was originally delivered to the Navy in somewhat different markings. I cut the stencils at Westover AFB's paint shop to exactly duplicate the originals. Note the l/g struts and wheels are in green zinc chromate. That's a Curtiss thing and you see it on Helldivers, too. The canopy had large cracks, but it was stitched together with safety wire as per instructions in an old wartime manual for "emergency repairs.". There was a thick "armor" plate behind the pilot's head and shoulders stenciled "NOT FOR COMBAT USE." So I thought it was likely made of aluminum, and temporarily removed it while cleaning up the cockpit. It may not have been armor, but it was steel, and super heavy. An uh-oh moment as it rested on my shins after demounting. Incidentally, we moved it (and other aircraft) around the hangar and ramp back then with a mangy-looking WW2-era Navy 10-ton forklift as a mule. Once the plane was truly display-ready, I had to really get obstinate to keep it INSIDE the hangar and not have it permanently put outdoors. At least pretty much all the work was done inside the hangar so visitors could still see it before it was finished. The topcoat came from the same 5-gallon bucket of paint that I used on the XF4U-4 at the same place. In later years it was loaned to the fledgling museum at the former NAS Quonset Point, and there was also talk that it really should be at the NAS Pax museum, as it's testing was done at Pax. I was disappointed to find out a couple years ago that it wasn't at Pax, but in its off-the-beaten-path location at present. It deserves better because of it's rarity and the way it represents a pivotal moment in naval aviation. Hope half of all that was a little interesting.

😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮⁴h😂😂😂😂😂😂

@@aj-2savage896 I can tell you from having seen the plane in person that you did a wonderful job of restoration. I feel priviledged that I had a chance to see it, and I have a feeling that many other visitors to the museum felt the same way. Thank you for your wonderful work, and thank you for sharing your experience of working on this historic airplane.

Yes, the Trent meteor.

@@leifvejby8023 In many ways the turboprop would have been ideal for early turbine powered carrier aircraft. The other innovations that really helped jets get onto carriers were the angled deck and the steam catapult both of which were gifted to the USN by the RN

Says who?

Agreed. lbf stands for "pounds of force", not "foot-pounds".

Torque is not the only force that can be measured in ft lbs of energy, it's not exclusive to torque, as an example the muzzle energy of firearms is also measured in ft lbs, and that has nothing to do with the fact that some projectiles rotate, shotguns and smooth bore muzzle loaders also have ft lbs of energy as measurements. Matter of fact when I explain torque and ft lbs to people I tell them to just forget about the fact that torque is a twisting motion because all that does is confuse people when it comes to understanding ft lbs of energy, the fact is it's a measurement that's made in a straight line, ie 100 ft lbs of energy is enough force to move 1 pound 100 feet in a straight line not going around in circles like a twisting motion (100 ft lbs is also the same amount of force to move 100 pounds 1 foot, it's exactly the same amount of force if you move 1 pound 100 feet). When it comes to horsepower torque is a component that's a part of measuring HP, there's no time component in the measurement of torque (ft lbs of energy), 100 foot pounds of energy is enough to move 1 pound 100 feet but you can take as long as you want moving that 1 pound the distance of 100 ft, HP is how fast you move that 1 pound the 100 feet, the faster you move 1 pound the 100 foot distance the more HP you've produced. People who like high torque numbers associated with engine's don't understand that ultimately it's meaningless without the time component, 70 ft lbs of torque at 3,000 RPM's will lose a race to 50 ft lbs of torque at 10,000 RPM's every time. 70 ft lbs of torque at 3,000 RPM's is 39.98 HP 50 ft lbs of torque at 10,000 RPM's is 95.20 HP Which one do you think will cross a finish line first? Torque itself is meaningless when it comes to engine power because it's only part of the equation, because horsepower adds time into the equation it's the final say on the matter.

Rather, they are rated with Kilo newtons- which is force

@@FlareAt30Feet Which is directly comparable to foot pounds, just multiply by 224.809 for the conversion. Both measurements are force over distance. There's no more difference between the two than pounds and kilo's when measuring weight, one's just standard measurements and the other is metric, same as with BTU's and Calories when measuring heat, one's standard and the other is metric.

came here to say this, but I always read the comments first...

"But good job, very interesting!" is how you should have finished that sentence.

Why the 'b' in lbs ?

​​@@O-cDxAblame the Romans 🤣 plumbing???? Lol

Correct, foot pounds is a measure of torque

And yet you're watching HIM and not vice versa

How did the Fury & the Pirate do?

@@jamesbugbee9026 The FJ-1 Fury first flew in September of 1946, a couple months after the Phantom. The Pirate was never issued to operational naval squadrons, relegated to training, research, and test roles for its career. It first flew October 6 1946, so even then the Phantom is the first operational jet fighter and the first one for the US Navy to ever fly

This was actually why the Royal Navy developed steam catapult launching.

You mean this one kzfaq.info/get/bejne/g5tpeLdmudK9lWw.html I was only in service for a short time and had a first in being the plane the had a successful ejection from underwater.

I was also really confused when he said "bullet size or quantity". Obviously 20mm is better than 12.7mm against aircraft, especially with the explosive fillers that could be inserted. It is no contest!

Actually explosive 50 cal bullets are a thing. They are however illegal to use on personnel. The USAAF used a mix of explosive, incendiary and armor piercing versions.

@@allangibson8494 thanks, I wasn't aware of them.

.50 caliber bullet will generally penetrate a structure deeper than will a low-velocity cannon shell. Cannon shells of this era also had slow firing rate, poor muzzle velocity and ballistics, and had poor amount of rounds to fire, due to weight.

I wasnt sure about the Dornier, makes it even more intersting.

Unfortunately, it sometimes lived up to that name.

I think so!

and a DO335 behind them I believe.

@@300guy I do belief it's indeed a "Pfeil".... Good eye.

And maybe a Dornier Arrow behind them as well?

@@beverlychmelik5504 Could be a Do 335, head-on directly under the tail of the foreground XF15C -- or some other aircraft with contra-rotating props. IDK? Naval Air Station Patuxent River [''Pax River''] was the Navy's base for Test Pilot School and HQ for Naval Air Systems Command [NAVAIR]. Any captured enemy technology assets would be evaluated there.

Got to wonder what they would be doing at Pax. We know they were not going to be used on the German carrier

@@raymondclark1785 After VE Day, the USAAF and USN divvied up captured German planes to be examined. The Akutan Zero [7/42] had also been scrutinized at Pax River, resulting in improved specs for the F4U, Hellcat and Bearcat. AAF equivalent would be Wright Field. A lot of were entertained there in this period. Perhaps at Pax River, too?

@@raymondclark1785 General testing and evaluation. After all they had to see what is out there and if they could use it in the future.

JATO bottles.

Early versions of the Mirage 3 had a small rocket motor installed under the engine exhaust as the afterburner was that of a simple "Clamshell" door style, similar to what was used on the Concorde. this didnt give very good extra thrust, so the rocket was used. Later on the more well-known mirages they had a much better afterburner installed.

Metrovick had problems with turbine reliability - that was only really solved with the F.9 Saphire.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_FH_Phantom

Seems like there's quite a few mistakes in this one....

Sad to hear about NAS Quonset because it used to be capable of mooring an ESSEX Class CV pierside along the sea wall. Would have been a good spot for an LHA or other large amphibious warfare platform or other warship. The Navy has lost a lot of its capabilities and assets.

Ryan liked names starting with “fire” (like the Grumman cats). They had a much longer production run with the “BQM-111 Firebrand” and “AQM-91 Firefly”. They also built Navion’s to a design they bought off North American Aviation.

Possibly first aboard his ship.

@@allangibson8494 then that means they were a couple years ahead of the F9f's and makes that the Navys first jet fighter.

@@allangibson8494 That means it was the first jet fighter in US navy service not the F9F

LOLOL

Dammit!

Your parents must be e-v-e-r so proud... 🙄 🍄

Check his page..."I hope you learned something "

Lol