Flying Boat : PBY Catalina

Рет қаралды 71,911

zxwar

16 жыл бұрын

Flying Boat PBY Catalina

Пікірлер: 36

@johnshields6852 Жыл бұрын

Great design, I've always loved this plane.

@duncs001 4 жыл бұрын

Like A M Fortas below, when I was younger, I wanted one of these as place to live in. Better than a yacht and with those big bulge canopies on the fuselage, the views must've been incredible over the islands of the Pacific Ocean.

@akira5952 3 жыл бұрын

one of my favorites planes of ww2. superb video.

@hikerham 14 жыл бұрын

Fantastic PBY History. Thanks for sharing!

@pwmiles56 13 жыл бұрын

Hi shelb and driver. I'm here because I think the Catalina was the most beautiful aircraft ever built. I don't know that much about flying, but I've read it was - and still is - quite tricky to land - has to kept between 67 and 70 knots, or some such. PWM

@darrylhayes3662 3 жыл бұрын

What a fascinating airplane able to land or take off on land and sea. Highly favorable to be a reconnaissance plane yet it combat capability

@grahamthebaronhesketh. 2 жыл бұрын

Genius design.

@AVMamfortas 13 жыл бұрын

We need this aircraft with 21C technology and fitted as a bachelor pad. Bay windows of course. :)

@frankeimer3906 6 жыл бұрын

Great video, thanks. From this Canadian.

@standupstraight9691 3 жыл бұрын

I just read a book about the RAAF and US minelaying operations in SW Pacific. Very interesting little known story and crucial to MacArthurs strategy.

@Valor_73737 4 жыл бұрын

I had an uncle who flew the Cat in WW 2.

@Valor_73737 4 жыл бұрын

@rickseeman1 So did Emory! I bet they knew each other!

@HRMOKeefe 15 жыл бұрын

Thanks!

@MrShobar 4 жыл бұрын

The rivets were not "mild steel". That would have created a host of problems, not to mention increasing the weight of the aircraft. Those rivets were made from a precipitation-hardening aluminum alloy, and were kept frozen until they were used to keep them soft. This simple observation casts doubt on any other factual assertion made here.

@chrisbanbury 2 жыл бұрын

This is not the original narration or the full documentary. The original documentary correctly identifies the rivets as Duralumin.

@almilani4300 4 жыл бұрын

Didnt know it used fabric wings and frozen rivets. It was great plane but the PBM was a much better design and was produced in greater numbers.

@apostleverde 4 жыл бұрын

Actually, there were around 1,300 PBM's built, and over 3,000 Catalinas. But yeah, I also consider the PBM a superior design and I wish it was easier to find in kit form. :/

@johnlott143 4 жыл бұрын

Good

@rcplanetim53 14 жыл бұрын

no.. your right.. this aint no guanli!!.. but they sure could have took some pointers from this vid!!! thanks..

@bluehornet6752 7 жыл бұрын

Mild steel rivets with aluminum skin? Seems to me like a recipe for massive differential metal corrosion...especially in a salt-water environment.

@thatpolishhotdog 7 жыл бұрын

I believe the coat the whole plane in a chromate primer that is very rust resistant but I may be wrong.

@bluehornet6752 7 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I'm sure they did as zinc chromate primer was used extensively back then--just as it was when I got into aircraft maintenance in the 1980s. But I wouldn't think the primer would get between the rivets and the skin--they'd have to spray the skins before applying the rivets (and also coat the rivets) to have any hope of that, and there are clearly shots of the bare metal fuselage in the video here (and in other places I've seen). So the differential metal corrosion would happen under the primer, is what I'm saying. I was able to find a copy of the PBY operating manual online, and there is definite mention of aluminum skins in it. But I haven't yet found any mention of rivet material in there however.

@thatpolishhotdog 7 жыл бұрын

I saw a documentary on it and the paint is applied in a totally dust free zone. Plus the rivets are put on before painting and they are actually put in a freezer until they are installed to ensure a very tight fit. I don't think any paint will get under that.

@bluehornet6752 7 жыл бұрын

Right--I saw that as well. I seriously doubt they are using mild steel rivets, unless they really didn't care about longevity. If the anticipated lifespan of the aircraft is predicted to be months or a few years at most, then my guess is that they really didn't care that much if there was a bit of corrosion. Otherwise, the video likely just mis-states the material. I believe they had aluminum rivets back in those days, so it's certainly possible they could have been used in these aircraft. When I was in Aircraft Mechanic's school in the early 80s, we had a few instructors who had been mechanics in the military in WWII. I cannot recall one of them ever mentioning the use of steel rivet in aluminum skin, but I suppose I might just be remembering it incorrectly. Another thing--given the number of rivets in the airframes back in those days, the weight differential between steel and aluminum rivets would likely have been significant. Imagine how many rivets got used in something like a B-29 for instance! So I have my doubts about the material as mentioned in the video, but I'll keep nosing around the Internet a bit. Maybe I can come up with something else.

@nethanelmasters5170 5 жыл бұрын

@@bluehornet6752 remember when they built these they didn't exspect them to last for very long because of the war. Surely not for 75 yrs. Aluminium rivets would have sheared off with the pounding of take offs and landings thats why they used mild steel rivets for the added strength.

@stephengardiner9867 4 жыл бұрын

It was NOT designed as a bomber. It was too slow to escape interception and too lightly (and awkwardly) armed to effectively defend itself when intercepted. Hardly the traits of an aircraft "designed as a bomber"! It was designed as a patrol aircraft (perhaps even "patrol-utility" if such a thing existed...Grumman Duck perhaps...). Yes, it could carry bombs or torpedoes for night time attack and anti-shipping, anti-sub operations... in areas where no aerial opposition was to be expected (even then their slow speed made them vulnerable to AA). Using your criteria, one could just as easily say that it had been designed as a search and rescue aircraft due to the numbers of downed pilots and stranded troops that it ferried out of harm's way. Was it a useful and versatile aircraft? Damned right! Reliable? Well, some are still flying today and post-war, they were EVERYWHERE doing damned near EVERYTHING.

@jotabe1984 4 жыл бұрын

It is a patrol aircraft in all their terms... any MPA is slow and has very little oportunity against a fighter... it happened in the past with Catalina, with P3 Orion, P8 Poseidon... you name it... But all of them had very impressive technology for their time and were more than able to chase submarines. Hell, i think if catalina were remotorized with Turboprops and some design changes, they could be valid MPA for modern day, since the main needs of such aircrafts are a pretty good radar and technology inside anyway

@moremoneyfordreadnoughts1100 4 жыл бұрын

PBY literally means Patrol Bomber, Consolidated. So it is a bomber. It was never meant to go up against real fighter defenses. So yeah, it's a bomber. Even with only two bomb racks for one bomb each.