when you gonna do Hungarian tanks

I know you have reasons, but would it be possible to stick to just one set of units for mass and length? Repeating everything in US and metric breaks up the flow. Personally I would prefer metric and everyone outside the States is familiar with that. I only mention it because the videos are so excellent otherwise that it seems a pity to have a flaw, however minor.

I just Sub'ed to your amazing channel and thanks.... Old F-4 Phantom 2 fighter jet pilot Shoe🇺🇸

Can we see a mig 23ml?

Is this a sister chanel to Yarnhub?

God Bless your dad!

@@josephgrosso8731 Those young brave men stemmed from the best generation of the times.

@@TBNTXAgreed

Hero!

I’m glad you’re here to tell his story. He was part of our greatest generation. Men of his generation came home from the war and became leaders in our little town.

Sorry for your loss. I had no idea how awesome this plane was.

RIP to your buddy, good on his wife to give it you. Awesome

Hey asome. Please share a pic it would be nice to see it. Thanks Philip

The landing gear sucked bobo! At least the original design was much to stiff, it was one of the major issues screwing up the carrier landings, it caused the planes to bounce on the landing deck. Another flaw the British fixed. The Royal Navy engineers modified the landing gear, replacing valves in the struts. The US navy originally refused them because of flaws, and design. It was US Marine land-based squadrons who first introduced the F4U Corsair to combat in February 1943.

But the basic concept of this landing gear was good, regarding the fact it was eventually fixed@@DIDYOUSEETHAT172

​@@DIDYOUSEETHAT172 The British Navy had absolutely nothing to do with the upgrades to the F4U or it's landing gear, that's just more WW2 myth nonsense born from post war British aviation writer's making up that malarkey because they knew it'd be a sensation with their target audience and would sell a lot of books, same goes with that nonsense myth that the Royal Navy taught US Navy pilots how to land F4U's on carrier's. It was VF-17 who worked directly with Vought to improve the F4U resulting in the F4U-1A, anyone that believes that an American aircraft manufacturer would seek help from the armed forces of another country during a war and when it's own country has a naval program bigger than anyone else's on the planet needs to have their head examined for believing it. Tommy Blackburn, commander of VF-17 and his squadron worked with Vought in the spring of 1943 when they were getting carrier qualified on the converted steamship USS Charger in Chesapeake Bay, as a result Vought promised VF-17 the very first production F4U-1A's when they came off the assembly line, after carrier qualification they were assigned to the brand new Essex class carrier USS Bunker Hill, the Bunker Hill and VF-17 did their work up together in the Caribbean off the coast of Jamaica, when they returned to Newport News to prepare to ship out to the Pacific as promised was the very first F4U-1A's off the assembly line waiting on them, they could see them from the deck of the Bunker Hill as it pulled into port. VF-17 departed the states on the Bunker Hill headed for the Solomon Islands Campaign but during a scheduled stop at Pearl Harbor for provisions they were informed that ComAirLand (the Navy department in charge of all aircraft) had ordered all F4U's removed from carrier service because of the lack of spare parts and qualified maintenance crews for that aircraft type, that's why F4U's were removed from carrier service not because of that nonsense story that United States Navy pilots couldn't land their own aircraft on their own carrier's, that's another nonsense story that anyone who believes it needs to have their head examined, and it was also VF-17 who came up with the wedge shaped wood block put on the leading edge of the right wing to correct it's nasty left wing stall characteristic at lower speed during the time they worked with Vought improving the F4U, yea right, they needed someone else to teach them how to land in a carrier, sure thing. And it was later when the Japanese launched their Kamikaze campaign in ernest that because of the F4U's superior climb rate and top speed over the F6F that it was determined to place an F4U squadron on each Essex class carrier, so they could take off first and with their superior climb rate and speed intercept incoming Kamikaze's with F6F's launching behind them to intercept any that made it through the F4U's, that's why they were later returned to carrier service not that bedtime story fairytale invented by a bunch of big mouthed braggers taking credit for something they don't deserve who claim it was because the Royal Navy taught US Navy pilots how to land their own aircraft on their own carrier's, that's just another nonsense WW2 myth that there's not one shred of proof it's true beyond "We say so", no record's, no testimony from US pilots about being trained by the Royal Navy, no orders showing any US Navy pilots to report somewhere to be trained by the Royal Navy, there's not one bit of actual proof to back it up, it's a fairytale invented by the British after the war is all that amounts to.

​@@DIDYOUSEETHAT172 No they didn't, that's just more nonsense claimed by the British about the F4U and it's service history after the war, it was VF-17 who worked directly with Vought to improve the F4U resulting in the F4U-1A during their carrier qualifications on the converted steamship USS Charger in Chesapeake Bay in the late winter and spring of 1943, it was also VF-17 that developed the wedge shaped piece of wood attached to the leading edge of the right wing to give it the same stall speed as the left wing during their time qualifying on Charger. Anyone who believes that a US aircraft manufacturer would seek help from the armed forces of another country during a war and when the United States had the largest naval program in the world needs to have their head examined, the same thing goes with that cock and bull story about the Royal Navy supposedly teaching US Navy pilots how to land their own aircraft on their own carrier's, anyone who believes that fairytale also needs their head examined, that's all nonsense invented by British aviation writer's believing a bunch of big mouthed braggers taking credit for something they don't deserve and eagerly printing it in books knowing it'd be a sensation with their target audience and would sell books for them. After carrier qualification and working with Vought to improve the F4U VF-17 was assigned to the brand new Essex class carrier USS Bunker Hill, the two did their work up together in the Caribbean off the coast of Jamaica, upon returning to Newport News Vought as promised for helping improve the F4U had supplied VF-17 with the first F4U-1A's off the assembly line, with their new F4U-1A's VF-17 and the Bunker Hill left the states for the Solomon Islands Campaign, however when they stopped at Pearl Harbor to take on provisions they were informed that ComAirLand, the Navy's department in charge of all aircraft, ordered all F4U's removed from carrier service because of the lack of spare parts and qualified maintenance crews, that's why F4U's were removed from carrier service not because US Navy pilots couldn't figure out how to land them on carrier's, at Pearl VF-17 was unloaded from the Bunker Hill and replaced with an F6F unit, afterwards it was loaded onto another carrier and sent to the island of Espiritu Santo in the Solomon's where they occupied the land based air strip there. During their time on Espiritu Santo VF-17 became the most successful F4U unit in history credited with 154.5 Japanese aircraft destroyed, 27 probables and 25 damaged, and they had more aces than any other F4U unit, yea, that sounds like guy's who needed someone else to teach them how to land their own aircraft, sure thing. Later on, and after spare parts were available and enough qualified maintenance crews had been trained when the Japanese launched their Kamikaze campaign in ernest in June of 1944 it was deemed to assign an F4U squadron to each Essex class carrier, the idea being that with it's superior climb rate and top speed over the F6F that F4U's would take off first to intercept incoming Kamikaze's with F6F's launching behind them to intercept any that made it through, that's why the Navy reinstated them to carrier service not because the Royal Navy taught US Navy pilots how to land their own aircraft on their own carrier's, there's not one shred of evidence that it's true, no record's of US Navy pilots ordered to report somewhere for training by the Royal Navy, no photographs, no testimony from US Navy pilots of being trained somewhere by the Royal Navy, no evidence whatsoever beyond "We say so", yea, right.

It wasn't the landing gear that allowed the wing shape but the wing shape allowed the landing gear to be short enough to survive carrier landings.

Didn't need to read them both off... read one and list both... simple. Great graphics!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I love it. Many channels seem to forget that tons of viewers are not from the US

Just wanted to make sure that everyone can understand just how badass this marvel of American engineering is.

As a Navy brat, I can tell you that saying the Corsair was an Air Force craft is fightin' words. XD

I have to agree, this is a top notch video. This was the only error I found also. I am really looking forward to watching more from this channel!

One other error, production ended in 1952, not 53, with the Goodyear FG-1D being the final variant.

One glaring error is about the wing construction. Although some of the wing parts are fabric covered, the leading edge as well as the top and bottom of the wing are absolutely, positively, sheet metal covered. The ailerons are fabric the flaps are metal.

@@tomwalsh7832 I assumed the whole thing was aluminum - I had no idea they were still using doped fabric in WWII. I've still got a lot to learn, I guess.

Where these factories located for the Corsair and Sikorski, respectively?

I think they were on Long Island Chance Vaught was in the Dalas, Ft Worth area.​@@jamesmcdonnell5617

CHANCE VOUGHT

Stratford, Conn. Same buildings were used to make Huey's in the '60's then upgraded for Blackhawk production now.@@jamesmcdonnell5617

Can you imagine the volume of spent cartridge cases scattered across much of Europe and the Pacific from aerial engagements?

@@peghead I imagine it was also not that uncommon in dogfights to get peppered with spent brass!

Another aircraft mechanic checking in. This is a flying killer. A tank with wings. Equally adept at ground strafing, dog fighting or outright bombing runs. The F4U was considered for installation of the Pratt & Whitney R 4360 28 cylinder air cooled radial engine capable of over 4000 HP. This configuration never came to fruition and there are no remaining F4U Corsair airframes with the R4360 engine configuration.

The French used it as well, I'm pretty sure the Royal New Zealand Airforce used the Corsair. I'm more of a Hellcat fan myself, love Grumman aircraft.

There are several F2g’s remaining. You can visit one at the boing museum of flight and I believe one still flies at the reno air races, well not reno anymore.

@@briandenison2325 atleast you can appreciate the cat and hog share the beast of an engine.

@@briandenison2325 Yes, The RNZAF also flew these. My grandfather flew Corsairs in Guadacanal and the Solomon Islands for the kiwi airforce.

Beautiful

Gracias por tu experiencia Yo a la edad de 12 hice un corsair Un Grumman avenger y un P 38.

AMAZING video! Some odd phrasing though? At 4:30 the guns are often reffered to just Fifty caliber right?

i mean he just referred to it as .50 cal

That legitimately surprised me with how detailed you guys were. If possible, I would like to see more detail on how the machine guns fired. More specifically how the trigger system worked. On naval aircraft, it would also be cool to see more detail on the tail hooks.

Very very well done. My only comment for correction is that this was a Navy plane and not an Air Force plane. Reference 19:50

Overall, the quality is amazing! The use of the model, its detailing and narrative is great, but it looks like some mishaps on the technical part are present. At 4:27 I’m not sure about the mid- and rear wing parts being covered in fabric. Firstly, you said earlier that only control surfaces were fabric-covered, and secondly, the model obviously shows metal hatches opening in the seconds after the statement. So yeah, probably metal skin Also, Corsair specifically has so many different variants, that I think it should be quite important to state that you are looking at just one of them. There is nothing wrong with doing that, but the aircraft went through multitude of engines, armament arrangements, fuselage designs etc. so, for the specificity of your video, I think saying the variant of the F-4U is much needed

Probably?

Absolutely

Despite my love for the Corsair, the Hellcat really has to get that title. It was used far more in naval ops over the Corsair and has a higher kill ratio.

Nah it’s performance put it up with the land fighters of the war, often out perform them in some areas. Plus despite the comparatively inexpensive cost of the hellcat, the moment the war ended the production of the hellcat ceased. But not the production of the Corsair.

The hellcat only scored that high because at that time the A6M2s were sitting ducks for them, put it against any land based fighter (including some japanese like the, Hien, the hayate and the shiden) and the hellcat would lose

I hope that one day your second bucket list item will be accomplished. ai'd love to fly in that bird, too.

Curious, not aware of "Pappy" flying multipule Corsairs, unless it was one from after the war? He was shot down and spent the last years of the war as a prisoner

If my memory serves me correct, Pappy was the leader of the infamous "black sheeps" right?

He was shot down, it may have been painted in his marking but it wasn’t his bird.

Greg Boyington's Corsair is currently sitting on the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. He was shot down on January 3, 1944 by a Zero fighter during a huge dogfight. He bailed out of his burning Corsair and was picked up by a Japanese submarine.

as the years went by the tourqe increased by the korean war the engine was so powerful that pilots started sayng it has enough tourqe to flip an entier house

The legendary Royal Navy test pilot Winkle Brown mastered the art of landing the Corsair on a pitching and rolling aircraft carrier and suggested alterations to the undercarriage. Making a huge change in its useability.

@@philhawley1219 yup they started coming in from the side so they could see the flag person from the left side of the cockpit

My father flew P-47s in WW II out of England and France. They had the same basic engine as the F4U. He told me he saw more than one "newbie" kill himself by "cobbing the throttle" with the brakes set, causing so much torque that the airplane flipped over while standing still. Sad, but impressive.

The movie that came out in 2022, Devotion, made reference and shown the issue of the torque. Very good movie

That is the MOST INFORMED,ACCURATE ASSESSMENT of this Aircraft I've seen..Most people aren't aware of what you stated.

@@user-nn7mb4ip4l Thank you much appreciated. 😊

Baa Baa Black Sheep

My father was there, he boarded CV21 in 1945 just after it was repaired as a result of damage sustained in a typhoon.

That flooring is common in metal stamping plants due to the oil on the metal. The lol droplets would soak into the end-grain wood to reduce slippery flooring. The floor would be periodically shaved to clean up and restore the surface.

I know exactly the floor type you're talking about. In the 80's, I was in the AF Reserve working in the Martin bomber plant in Omaha that had the same floor. As they replaced the floors, they pulled up the old wooden "bricks" and made commemorative plaques from them to give you when you departed the squadron. I still have mine right here on my desk.

As was mention about the wood floors in metal stamping plants. I was told the wood pieces were used to help product the dies if one was dropped, plus I was told they would only set the dies on the wood vs the cement for service and what ever else.

Thank you very much!

We're working on a tank for our next film

@@BluePawPrint Tiger, Sherman or T-34👀👀

Ooooohhh..praying for the m26 pershing 😉