No video
Fabulous and Funky Fifties Fighters
Рет қаралды 146,714
Күн бұрынFabulous (and not) U.S. Navy fighters undergo carrier suitability trials. Featuring the McDonnell F3H "Demon", Vought F7U "Cutlass", Douglas F4D "Skyray" and A4D "Skyhawk" aboard the USS Ticonderoga (CV-14) in September, 1955.
@Katzbalger001 4 жыл бұрын
Love these planes, too. The Demon kind of looks like a proto-Phantom II, and the A4D was (is) a fantastic little attack jet.
@JustaPilot1 4 жыл бұрын
Funny you should say that. The Mcdonald F3F Demon was the predecessor to the Macdonald F-4 Phantom II.
@Mishn0 4 жыл бұрын
@@JustaPilot1 The first prototypes of the Phantom were actually called Demons, the F3G.
@paultiffanyrutherford5898 4 жыл бұрын
@@JustaPilot1 AWESOME
@collectorfun 13 жыл бұрын
The Skyhawks survives all others "things" and continue to flying in many air forces, what a Fighter!.....56 years in service!
@TubeNotMe 5 жыл бұрын
You can see how the F-3 was developed into the F-4. I remember when I was a kid in the 60s we had a toy Skyray and Cutlass and I thought they were super cool looking. They still look cool, but I guess they didn't work out as well. The A4 had a long service life, very utilitarian.
@daveburch235 4 жыл бұрын
I also love the looks of the delta-winged Skyray and Cutlass. The F4D Skyray was one of the first model kits I built as a kid. While it had a short career, it was developed into the supersonic F5D Skylancer that was used for NASA research into the 1960s. A Skylancer flown by Neil Armstrong is on display at the Neil Armstrong Museum in his hometown of Wapakoneta, Ohio. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_F5D_Skylancer
@tomcline5631 4 жыл бұрын
The main problem with these cool planes was the lack of powerful enough engines! Some were really amazing,flying wise. They just didn't have the power or reliability from those early jet engines.
@broznkyra4853 4 жыл бұрын
I remember having a toy aircraft carrier with plastic Cutlasses that launched from a spring catapult...the number on the boat was 59...
@TubeNotMe 4 жыл бұрын
@@tomcline5631 The X-3 was a similar case. Very cool looking plane -- very extreme, anyway, but underpowered. Just as well, because they couldn't control it so well, either. Maybe if they had modern computer controls, like on the F-117, along with powerful engines, it would have really been something. It did provide research valuable for the development of the F-104 Starfighter.
@tomcline5631 4 жыл бұрын
@@TubeNotMe That was the one with the long nose with the canopy flush with the surface right called it the Stiletto. If that's the one,yeah it was beautiful,yet didn't have enough power to get out of it's own way! I think the control problems would have rectified themselves with more powerful engine,thus more speed. That super thin narrow span wing needed speed to perform. Yep a really cool plane with lots of potential,with a weak sister engine! Take care.stay healthy.
@nocalsteve 15 жыл бұрын
Could anyone have imagined then that the A-4 Skyhawk would still be in service and flying with the Blue Angels over 30 years later? Not to mention, serving as an adversarial fighter at Top Gun. The A-4 put all of those other aircraft to shame.
@Name-ps9fx 4 жыл бұрын
When technology isn’t up to par....simplicity rules!
@casspirmk6338 4 жыл бұрын
Only wars make fast evaluation of aircraft and tactics. No war- no good aircraft.
@stefanhernold345 Жыл бұрын
...while most of the aircraft shown in the footage were in service only for a short time.
@hakapik683 5 жыл бұрын
Under powered, over weight jets that flew like wet sheep at slow speeds... must have been a terrifying experience landing on those TINY aircraft carriers that were built for WW2 prop driven fighters.
@nick48823 14 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the post. I love these old planes--they have so much character. I think the Demon is a cool plane---all it needed was a J79!
@erikhafer1415 5 жыл бұрын
Reminds me if the OLD Discovery Channel show Wing's. I miss that show !
@brothergrimaldus3836 4 жыл бұрын
They're on here... you just have to look.
@justonemorecast 11 жыл бұрын
Other than the A-4 it is amazing how short the service life for these planes were. You can see quite a resemblance to the Phantom in the demon.
@Tigershark_3082 Жыл бұрын
The Demon directly led to the Phantom. McDonnell came up with a twin-engine (and also modular) Demon variant, known as the F3H-G. It served as the comptetitor to the F8U Crusader, but never made it past the mockup stage. The F3H-G was then re-tooled into the XF4H-1 Phantom in 1959
@AmericasChoice 4 жыл бұрын
The Ford was head and shoulders above the rest.
@jarvisfamily3837 4 жыл бұрын
Yeah, it was a pretty plane. Too bad it was subsonic.
@AmericasChoice 4 жыл бұрын
@@jarvisfamily3837 Yes. Apparently, a fun plane to fly. Some are in private hands now and flown for kicks.
@koivis87 14 жыл бұрын
Nice video! Yep, the USN had an interesting hodge-podge of planes in the 1950s. And the 4 planes featured here also had all different engines: Allison J71 (F3H), Westinghouse J46 (F7U), P&W J57 (F4D) and Wright J65 (F4D)! Must have been a maintenance nightmare...
@acebubbles5023 2 жыл бұрын
crazy to see that A-4B out there when all the rest are absolute museum pieces now. Skyhawks still goin strong👏🏼
@jarvisfamily3837 4 жыл бұрын
Who would've thought that a POS like the F3H would be followed up by arguably the best fighter of its generation - the F-4 Phantom II.
@shelbyseelbach9568 4 жыл бұрын
@Richard McCaig bad engines make a fighter a POS. HE'S RIGHT.
@emjackson2289 Жыл бұрын
About a dozen A4s still flying but the rest, long gone, indeed some of these didn't even get to get Tri-Service Designations. But oh my, can you smell the future? Just think, 10 yrs earlier these carriers had F6Fs F4Us TBDs etc.
@AugustusLarch 12 жыл бұрын
Demons were a very good machine. The later versions had more power. They were called 'the chair' by pilots because the handling and visibilty from the cockpit was so good. The Demon was directly developed into the F-4 phantom. A phantom is mostly just a twin engine two seat demon.
@williamc.1198 4 жыл бұрын
The carrier appears to still have a straight deck. The F7U "Cutlass" was a neat looking aircraft; unfortunately it was a terrible aircraft due to weak powerplants and the long nose strut.
@johannbezuidenhout2976 4 жыл бұрын
It got the nickname "Gutless".
@drivernjax 4 жыл бұрын
@@johannbezuidenhout2976 An artist I follow drew an F7U and we both wondered how well it would operate today with more powerful powerplants. I even wondered if the Navy would adopt it because of its so outrageous design.
@granttelfer5865 4 жыл бұрын
The F4D and the F8U used the same engine. The F4D Skyray was built for one purpose: to launch off a carrier deck and get to altitude quickly to intercept a Soviet bomber. It did this and still holds records. It was the only Navy aircraft that could climb vertically while accelerating. It was retired because the Navy could no longer afford single mission aircraft. The F4D and the A4 were both designed by the Douglas genius, Ed Heinemann.
@steven2212 4 жыл бұрын
The A-4D outlast and outclassed all of them. Great 👍post.
@willcampbell8997 4 жыл бұрын
The Navy in the mid 50's had some funky looking planes. The A-4 Skyhawk was the only plane featured in this video that had a long-lasting service career, serving throughout the Vietnam War, even when the A-7 Corsair II was replacing it. Skyhawks were very useful on the smaller Essex and Midway Class carriers because of their small size. They also saw a long career as an aggressor craft for pilot training. The late 50's saw a number of iconic and memorable aircraft begin their service careers, the F-8 Crusader, A-3 Skywarrior, and A-5 Vigilante would see service over the skies of Vietnam. The F-4 Phantom would join them by the beginning of the 1960's.
@ufoengines 7 жыл бұрын
Always liked that Skyray . They got a lot of use out of the Skyhawk.
@trespire 5 жыл бұрын
The A-4 Skyhawk were tough little jets, very capable for their size.
@marbleman52 5 жыл бұрын
@@trespire The A-4 Skyhawk was a real workhorse and very maneuverable. It wasn't supersonic, but it did great job over many years. I was in the Navy air squadron VAQ-33, out of N.A.S., Norfolk, Va., from 1971-75. We had 4 of these A-4's, along with other aircraft. I got to calling these small A-4's the 'mosquito' because that's what they reminded me of..LOL..!! Remember that they replaced the great F-4 Phantom in the Blue Angels. That was a big let-down for me. Those amazing big and menacing F-4's and their fantastic afterburners were incredible to see and hear when the Blue Angels had them. Compared to the F-4's, the A-4's were a big yawn. But I have come to appreciate just how versatile and maneuverable and useful a role that the A-4's played; not only for the U.S., but for other Countries as well.
@TopGun8993 13 жыл бұрын
A-4's forever!!! I worked on the A-4 E,F &M and T/A-4J at Top Gun, NAS Miramar from 89-93. I was a Plane Capt. and Aviation Structural Mech. I miss the old A-4. It served our country heavily in Vietnam and later in aggressor squadrons and at Top Gun. It also served as the Blue Angels from 1974(I think) until 1986. @koivis87, I wasn't in power- plants, but I believe the Skyhawk had a Pratt & Whitney J-52 engine.
@rbagel55 4 жыл бұрын
It was the J52 for it's powerplant. My father flew over 194 combat missions in A4s. They were a great plane and that is why the Navy kept them around for so long.
@allangibson8494 4 жыл бұрын
The New Zealand Airforce retired their A-4Ks in 2001 and sold them in 2012...
@alanrogers7090 4 жыл бұрын
When I was a kid, I made model aircraft. I had all of these planes.
@richardhoepfner1633 4 жыл бұрын
The Gutless Cutlass killed a lot of pilots.
@Mishn0 4 жыл бұрын
Not really, in absolute numbers. There never were very many of them and they weren't around very long. But it sure is fun posting edgy comments without having the data.
@bubbaclinton1105 5 жыл бұрын
They seem to be showing the Demon off even though it too was a slug compared to the A4 and Skyray.
@tomcline5631 4 жыл бұрын
You sure can see the Phantom's ancesrty in that F3h!
@jarvisfamily3837 4 жыл бұрын
Yeah - there was only one major difference - the F-4 could fly. With the F3H it was always a question...
@AugustusLarch 11 жыл бұрын
The voodoo and the Phantom are similar in size. I have the Squadron Signal InAction book on the Demon. It has a section where they were proposing a two seat Demon with two engines. They had a mockup and the photo looks a lot like the F-4. I wasn't speaking out of my but on this. I have published info to back it up. "It has almost nothing in common except the general layout, and the raised tail." Almost nothing is sometimes something.
@justforever96 11 жыл бұрын
Most tricycle planes are balanced on the rear wheels; doesn't take much to lift the nose wheel, because it has to be easy to rotate. On a carrier jet, especially with these old school airfoils, they had to be very nose-high to begin with, so they'd be at an appropriate angle-of-attack to launch. This attitude, plus the lack of weight on the nose-wheel meant that it would bounce, particularly when the fuel was empty. Steering was with the brakes, so it didn't matter, so long as it didn't tip!
@60skidlostinspace 4 жыл бұрын
If The Demon had 2 engines it would be awesome.
@biukucanoe 15 жыл бұрын
Demon was a subsonic disappointment, but was the primary platform for sparrow missle until replaced by its derivative - the legendary F-4 Phantom.
@bobbob4652 4 жыл бұрын
I've always wondered how they manage to build that spindly looking nose gear so strong the cat doesn't rip it off..
@tonerotonero1375 4 жыл бұрын
The catapult wasn't hooked to the front landing gear. They were using a cable hooked between the catapult and hooks under the fuselage. The sling was used once only and fell into the ocean at the tip of the catapult.
@Nomamegoogle 5 жыл бұрын
In someway, airplanes are beautiful.
@naughtmoses 3 жыл бұрын
The "Gutless" didn't get the engines it needed, but it did ultimately influenced the plan form of the wonderful F/A-18. Likewise, the Demon and the Phantom. I knew two guys who'd flown Demons before they got F-8 Crusaders. As much as the F-8 was an "adventure" to trap at 150+ kts, they preferred it by far to the F3H. I knew several others who'd flown the Ford and loved it. Ed H. =knew= airframes.
@snazzyjazzyshar 2 жыл бұрын
thank you so much
@SomeGuyInSandy 5 жыл бұрын
Ah 144p the Fabulous Funky Potato of Video, pretty awesome for about 30 sec. We actually watched this stuff, lol.
@steveshoemaker6347 5 жыл бұрын
I did not try to watch it....It was kinds like the first TV we had in the early 50's....It lit up.....As a little child I though it was a Radio with a light on it...lol...!
@daveskinner5131 4 жыл бұрын
Gutless Cutlass....at least the Crusader saved Vought.
@Sherwoody 4 жыл бұрын
The Cutlass was cool looking. That was about the only good thing about it. It was underpowered, had unreliable landing gear, structural issues, and was responsible for killing 25 pilots.
@rieskimo 11 жыл бұрын
That was really cool, thanks for the share.
@jcameronferguson 9 жыл бұрын
The F7U, aka the "Gutless" due to its lack of climb speed, was a bad planform with good avionics and a well-designed wing root. The Cutlass' folding wingtips and wing angle were incorporated into the F8 Crusader, but with a better (single) engine and a whole-wing trim control for the quasi-delta wing.
@kdrapertrucker 6 жыл бұрын
Cameron Ferguson cutlass was a good airplane, had they added leading edge slats and more powerful engines the Cutlass would have Bern a world beater.
@fr8boy 5 жыл бұрын
The Gutless was let down by the engines being not powerful enough and the design was based around the engines proposed power, the all hydraulic flight control system was not reliable enough. The biggest issue going on to a carrier deck was that massively long nose strut that in some of the F7U-1s and -2s would bump into the bottom of the pilot seat causing an ejection. Pilot reports from the Cutlass all said when she was operating properly it was a fantastic airplane to fly, responsive, stable and if it were not for the powerplants, she could have been pretty fast for the day too. The Blue Angels used one maybe 2 for a couple of seasons as the solo slot, but they sent it back because the engines were unreliable, and the flight control system was too advanced for the day.
@biukucanoe 15 жыл бұрын
F4D was slightly successful but overtaken by supersonic types. Cutlass was largely a flop. A4 skyhawk was Vietnam legend, still a good bomber today if you don't need V/STOL.
@OldGlaseye-gf7si 4 жыл бұрын
Wow, the USN went thru some bizarre designs until the F-9, F-11, F-8, F-4....Demons, Skyrays, Cutlass’....
@nervechews6781 8 ай бұрын
Completely badass. Born too late.
@280StJohnsPl 8 жыл бұрын
Good looking aircraft
@snarkymatt585 4 жыл бұрын
Oh look it's a baby Phantom II lol.
@Craigers22763 14 жыл бұрын
I love these old jets! Too bad they had such short service lives ( with the exception of the A-4) Once the F-8 Crusader and then the F-4 phantom entered service, they all quickly disappeared. The Demon, Cutlass and Skyray were all underpowered and by the time they were upgraded it was already too late.
@KB4QAA 8 жыл бұрын
The one thing the F4D Skyray was NOT was underpowered It had a huge engine in a smooth light weight airframe. It held time to climb records for years and years.
@davidsike734 Жыл бұрын
What year were the Essex carriers converted to angle deck? utilizing side elevators etc
@brothergrimaldus3836 4 жыл бұрын
Thank the Lord they went to the unified system of aircraft designation.
@decam5329 4 жыл бұрын
Yes. Total mess back then.
@kevinrollins7710 12 жыл бұрын
poor li'l cute guy. like so many airplanes of the era, the engines were it's downfall. So much lost potential :(
@november2076 6 жыл бұрын
Kevin Rollins yeah
@tony_5156 6 жыл бұрын
Ikr, so many beautiful aircraft, so fucking cool.
@tony_5156 6 жыл бұрын
Well yeah, early engines were good or were just primitive and trash. Or even had potential and just needed a little elbow grease to fix.
@mikearmstrong8483 Жыл бұрын
There was no A-4D Skyray. When he says it, it is showing a Skyhawk. This guy keeps mixing up the two different planes, the A-4D Skyhawk and the F-4D Skyray, showing videos of each randomly alternating. Again, they were two DIFFERENT planes.
@youtube.youtube.01 4 жыл бұрын
Cold War propaganda film...They flew amazing with minimal payload and minimal fuel. Once they loaded them, the flying became dangerous or required the carrier to steam closer to the target before launching. Only the A-4 lived up to expectations. Jets couldn't easily reproduce the radial engine's throttling response during takeoff and approach. Too much turbine lag and weight was a lethal combination.
@pallen49 4 жыл бұрын
I wonder how many of the crews on those ships and pilots fought in WW2?...If they have, imagine them seeing and witnessing the coming of the jet age...
@williamsimmons152 4 жыл бұрын
ponchai allen probably not too many crew, but I’d bet the pilots had.
@justforever96 11 жыл бұрын
That is an extreme exaggeration. The F3H and the Phantom share almost nothing aside from a common purpose (missile-armed fleet interceptor), and the very general layout, with the raised tail over the engine(s), low wing, center-fuselage fuel tanks and the side-mounted intakes. The fuselage structure is different, the wing is different, the tail is different, the Phantom is much larger, etc. There's more difference than between, say a Wildcat and Hellcat. The F-101/F-4 have more in common.
@steveshoemaker6347 5 жыл бұрын
I did not try to watch it....It was kinds like the first TV we had in the early 50's....It lit up.....As a little child I though it was a Radio with a light on it...lol...!
@Jhorak101 6 жыл бұрын
Engines flamed out a lot , compressor stalls, afterburner blow outs etc etc.
@theshockershocker6607 9 жыл бұрын
Note which aircraft did not do the final flyover at the end of carrier trials...because the aircraft didn't finish the trials. Whoops.
@KB4QAA 9 жыл бұрын
+TheShocker Shocker Or, they returned to base early. No need for sensationalism with no basis.
@rubensflorentino548 8 жыл бұрын
The MD F 3 does has some resemblances to the future F4 Phantom
@cowboybob7093 6 жыл бұрын
The McDonnell empennage , F-88, F3H, F-101, F-110, oops, I mean F-4 There's at least one clip around here where the Phantom-II is referred to as the F-110 on the original celluloid.
@snarkymatt585 4 жыл бұрын
Well the F4 was developed from a revised plan to upgrade the F3... I like to think of the F3 as a baby or juvenile F4 lol.
@williamlarson3623 6 жыл бұрын
Note how someone (?) scrubbed the identifying nose numbers off the Cutlass planes shown here. And aside from the foxy 'go-get-em' music, the narrator says some of these landings were intentionally arrested off center (for endurance, performance purposes of the Cutlass). Now wonder if some of the color films here had actually been taken aboard the Hancock, c. 1950s, during which it was filmed in B&W showing a Cutlass taking the catwalk, with resultant fireball and loss of lives. See official US Navy B&W (16mm films) of that accident, then compare to the home (color) movies also seen on youtube, and the comments I've made about this elsewhere. Appears patriotism wins out, even if disastrous for our pilots in the making.
@KR4FTW3RK 11 жыл бұрын
The cutlass is so beautiful *__*
@Agislife1960 4 жыл бұрын
The Scooter is the only one that turned out to be a top notch machine although the Demon also had a pretty decent service record.
@jarvisfamily3837 4 жыл бұрын
Heinemann's Hot Rod :-)
@DoctorShocktor 8 жыл бұрын
@biukucanoe The Demon certainly wasn't on par with the Phantom, but for its era it did its job, FAR from a disappointment for the needs of the moment. Since the F-8 couldn't do night fighting, the Demon had to fill in for it on carrier defense at night. No other fighter served as well at the time it was in its prime.
@bobkay7897 6 жыл бұрын
DoctorShocktor ji
@oxcarthabu 2 жыл бұрын
The Navy had a lot of unsuccessful jets in the 50's.
@oldgysgt 4 жыл бұрын
The Cutlass was a cool looking air craft. Too bad it was such a dog.
@surearrow 11 жыл бұрын
What's up with the Demon after landing. Looks like a puppy sitting on its butt - even the front wheel lifts off the deck. Tail heavy? Never saw any carrier plane do that so bad before.
@donaldparlettjr3295 7 жыл бұрын
Notice the "Gutlass" wasn't in the flyover at the end. God that was a worthless bird. Chance-Vought really messed up with that one. Agreed there were some innovations but as a whole, DEATH TRAP!
@raiderfandew 5 жыл бұрын
Agreed.... but it was a neat looking model for a 12-year-old kid to put together!
@scootergeorge9576 5 жыл бұрын
The biggest problem with the Cutlass was the Westinghouse jet engines. One disgruntled pilot remarked the companies' toasters put out more heat than the jet engines they build. It was designed to take the XJ-40 as was the F4D and FH3. The engine was a complete failure. The weak J-46 was substituted.
@willcampbell8997 4 жыл бұрын
Chance-Vought had two losers going into the Jet-Age with both the Pirate and the Cutlass. Vought redeemed themselves with the F-8 Crusader and later the A-7 Corsair II.
@AdrianN.88 15 жыл бұрын
Wow! some wierd fat alien looking aircraft. i didnt knw the A4 was so old. out of those onlt the A4 continued. i cant believe how old these aircraft will be today! over 50 yrs! its amaizing how quickly jet aircraft evolved and boosted into production!
@nathanfugate8210 5 жыл бұрын
That Allison J71 killed the Demon. If it had been re-engined with the Pratt & Whitney J75, and redesigned intakes, it could have been an all-time great. Too bad.
@trespire 5 жыл бұрын
I was just admiring its MD family resemblance to the Phantom.
@Hobgoblin1975 7 жыл бұрын
Panama Canal be damned, seems the smart move would be to have giant 2 hull carriers catamaran style with a yuge flight deck between them. I mean, carriers are nuclear powered now, so fuels not an issue. How often do you need to get through the canal anyway? you could carry more planes, ordinance, supplies. Porting might be a problem, but its a problem now with gigantic single hull carriers. Of course that might save too much money and the pentagon wouldn't like that at all.
@squach6239 7 жыл бұрын
Hobgoblin1975 Hey bro! None of our nuke carriers can go thru the canal now!
@kdrapertrucker 6 жыл бұрын
Hobgoblin1975 yeah, you know why that wouldn't work? Because the hulls move relative to each other.
@hymanocohann2698 5 жыл бұрын
Go for trihull with full fore and aft bulkheads, redundant protection from hull damage taking you down.
@13stalag13 4 жыл бұрын
They don't have strong enough materials to handle the stresses a catamaran style aircraft carrier would develop.
@zzodr 4 жыл бұрын
One day they'll look back on all the old FA18E/Fs, F35s F22s and old electromagnetic catapult tech.
@vondumozze738 4 жыл бұрын
The Demon gave a lot of flight deck personnel hearing problems owing to its high pitch whine. The Cutlass killed a lot of pilots and nothing much came out of the Skyray. One of the shortcomings of the Skyhawk was loading the 20mm ammo cans into the plane. Heavy and awkward.
@ccblack1 15 жыл бұрын
At 5:30 ... check it out. Is he going to make it ? What an ungainly aircraft the F3H Demon was. Just watching all this action in this film you can tell each of these pilots are highly qualified test pilots. Once a Cutlass or a Demon got into the hands of a low time pilot ... I bet it was a different story.
@chpatriot9878 4 жыл бұрын
was für eine Shit-Qualität einem zugemutet werden kann. Zuerst habe ich geglaubt,dass meine Brille angelaufen ist. Aber NEIN ,es war das Video selbst ! Besser nichts ,als sowas.
@gcarlson 4 жыл бұрын
Given the title, I would like to recommend Bootsy Collins for the voice over work. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/aLmYbMaW366ylZc.html
@garypeatling7927 6 жыл бұрын
Stirring music
@maureencora1 5 жыл бұрын
I Wonder how They Match Up vs Mig -17s, and 19s?
@bubbajones6907 5 жыл бұрын
The A-4 was good.
@maureencora1 5 жыл бұрын
In Air War Over Vietnam How Many Migs Air Victories?
@macworks9389 2 жыл бұрын
My god how many terrible aircraft other than the Skyhawks can you have on the deck at once. Run for your life everyone!
@CornCod1 6 жыл бұрын
Yeah a lot of these planes were failures or semi-failires.
@williamosborne6866 5 жыл бұрын
The A-4 was in production for 25 years, and the USMC didn't retire them until 1998 (40 year service). Israel was still flying them until 2015.
@alphakky 4 жыл бұрын
Too bad the F7U had underpowered engines, always dug the unconventional design.
@chainlightning58 15 жыл бұрын
The F7U was such an ugly, crappy airplane. If there was a flight simulator that wasn't an addon where I could fly the F7U in combat, I would always fly it to mess with people.