The F2H Banshee Was The Best Straight Wing Jet Fighter

No video

The F2H Banshee Was The Best Straight Wing Jet Fighter

Рет қаралды 40,707

Күн бұрын

This video covers the later, long fuselage McDonnell F2H Banshees. Although straight winged, the Big Banjo was an excellent fighter with unparalleled range and high altitude performance for the time. It also ushered in the era of radar-equipped Navy fighters operating in regular squadrons outside of night and all-weather detachments.
These aircraft tend to be a footnote in the Banshee story rather than seen as a distinct aircraft in their own right. Hopefully this video goes some way to correcting that oversight.
Key Sources
Steve Ginter's 'Naval Fighters Two: McDonnell Banshee' is a useful basic reference guide to the type
'FH Phantom/ F2H Banshee In Action' by Jim Mesko contains some really nice photos and is a good, if short read
'F2H Banshee Units' by Richard R Burgess is a more recent publication and includes some nice stories of operational Big Banjo use

Пікірлер: 155

@TheJuggtron 4 ай бұрын

The first 15 years of jet development amaze me 1944 - 1959 and the F4 is STILL in service

@Batmack 4 ай бұрын

Of course, we mean that F4 that was originally conceived to be a naval fighter, but was also used on the ground and even when fully deployed its wings bent up in a dihedral

@TexasSpectre 4 ай бұрын

It was originally built to be a very good missile truck and it’s still viable as a missile truck - just want to avoid getting into a furball with more recent fighters.

@derrickstorm6976 4 ай бұрын

@@Batmackwhat does any of that have to do with it being still in service?

@derrickstorm6976 4 ай бұрын

@@TexasSpectreyou mean to say that any jet from the 50's could still be in service if they could just carry modern missiles? A good joke for sure

@TexasSpectre 4 ай бұрын

@@derrickstorm6976 No, because pretty much all of them were gun fighters. Just being able to carry missiles wasn't enough - it had to have been designed to be a missile truck.

@Jon.A.Scholt 4 ай бұрын

Is anyone else amazed that this channel is almost a year old now? It's feel like just yesterday I found this awesome new aviation channel with only 2 videos uploaded! And now, here we are, a year has gone by and we keep getting great content weekly! Also, have these videos become a "Friday Lunch Break Ritual" for anyone else? I'm always tempted to start watching them before my lunch break, but I'd rather watch them start to finish!

@karlfranz3819 4 ай бұрын

Same, he really reminds me of drach. Amazing videos every week

@karlfranz3819 4 ай бұрын

Same, great video for my lunch break, what more could you wish?

@Jon.A.Scholt 4 ай бұрын

@@karlfranz3819 Wednesday lunch break is Drach's "Rum Ration Wednesday", though those videos are usually so long I end up watching most of them after work. If you like this channel and Drach, I highly recommend Polyus, an aircraft channel on all things Canadian Aerospace (sounds niche, but I promise it's great) He doesn't upload often anymore but his videos are high quality and similar to "Not a Pound".

@Jon.A.Scholt 4 ай бұрын

@robertsantamaria6857 4 ай бұрын

Wow, that was really neat footage of the banshees refueling in-flight from a seaplane at around the 6 minute mark. Great selection of clips to accompany the narration.

@chriskortan1530 4 ай бұрын

Yes! I immediately noticed the relatively rare R3Y Tradewind. I've always liked the anachronism of basically WW2 propeller planes fueling atomic age jets. In this case, an obsolescent seaplane to boot!

@hawkertyphoon4537 4 ай бұрын

@@chriskortan1530 i was thinking "Mars! M;ars...?! What the heck is THIS!?" Thanks for the headsup!

@chriswalton720 4 ай бұрын

11:47 minor correction, the Canadian government didn’t approve the purchase until the production line was already shut down. All RCN Banshees were acquired secondhand from the U.S. Navy, and Canada wound up settling for only 39 aircraft rather than 60 due to delays in the F3H Demon program, which in turn delayed the retirement of the Banshee, resulting in retired aircraft being in worse condition than forecast.

@jrdougan 28 күн бұрын

The Most Canadian Procurement

@s.marcus3669 4 ай бұрын

Beautiful video clip of the Convair Tradewind flying boat refueling the two Banshees!

@WAL_DC-6B 4 ай бұрын

Looks like that thumbnail photo is from the old 1/72 scale, Hobbycraft (Canada), McDonnell F2H "Banjo," plastic model kit. Excellent story on this lesser known, 1950s naval jet fighter and thanks for sharing!

@jonathanhudak2059 4 ай бұрын

Indeed it is! Have seen that kit around at several a vendors table at model shows over the past 2 decades! Never grabbed one yet but I do have the MPC and Academy variants in the stash to build 😊

@ottovonbismarck2443 4 ай бұрын

It looked so familiar ! As we're speaking, I am blowing dust off my old 1/72 Airfix kit. Shouldn't have started it, now the other kits want a dust-off, too.

@lancerevell5979 4 ай бұрын

I have built two of these kits - one in USMC markings and one in Canadian markings. Good model, far better than the old 1/48 Hawk kit of the earlier Banshee.

@jonathanhudak2059 4 ай бұрын

@ottovonbismarck2443 feel your pain on started kits lol! Every modeler has their shelf of doom so to speak hahaha!

@ottovonbismarck2443 4 ай бұрын

@@jonathanhudak2059 They were already done in the 90s (last century). It's dust on wings.🙂 But oc there's the shelf of doom as well, a Matchbox Lancaster, a Revell S-boat, a scratch-built S-boat, the old Airfix RAF Motor Launch ... And the "cemetary of treasures" inluding an Airfix Sunderland and a Catalina and the Revell (old Matchbox) Flower Class corvette ... At least I remember these; there are more ...

@charliehurst7308 4 ай бұрын

This channel is shockingly good

@marktuffield6519 4 ай бұрын

Awwww, please don't diss the Douglas F3D Skyknight an aircraft which has a strong place in my heart thanks to the Rareplanes Vacuform kit and a bus ride to Croydon on a day off work in the long hot summer of 1983 😁. Yes I would like a Skyknight video please, hint, hint. Great work on the fabulous "big banjo".

@petesheppard1709 4 ай бұрын

Even though it was too heavy for carrier use, it served with success in the Marines, both as a night fighter in Korea and as a radar jammer in Vietnam, until replaced by the EA-6A Prowler. AND YES, I second a DRUT (EF-10B nickname--'turd' spelled backwards) video--hopefully it's in the pipeline.

@stickiedmin6508 4 ай бұрын

@@petesheppard1709 Was the EA-6A also referred to as 'Prowler,' rather than 'Intruder?' I thought it was only the purpose built, four seat version that got the different name?

@petesheppard1709 4 ай бұрын

@@stickiedmin6508 Good question! Admittedly, my memory's a bit fuzzy, and the -A didn't stay in service too long.

@petesheppard1709 4 ай бұрын

@@stickiedmin6508 I just checked Wiki, and in the EA-6B article, the A was mentioned as the 'Electric Intruder'

@heatloss9536 4 ай бұрын

Hughes FCS enthusaist here-I'm not sure about it being "E-10". The cannon FCSes were generally MG series, and the switchology, though the layout was altered significantly from the F-86K installation, aligns with the MG-4 FCS of the F-86K. The use of the APG-37 radar also aligns with the MG-4.

@jimsvideos7201 4 ай бұрын

It's pretty wild seeing them doing circuits with the canopy open.

@maciek_k.cichon 4 ай бұрын

There's a Bell P-59 Airacomet (prototype I think) with open 'nose gunner' position 😆

@Jon.A.Scholt 4 ай бұрын

I thought the same thing when I saw those Banshee's attempting to land on those carriers and being called off. Then I had to remind myself these guys were probably WW2 vets or naval aviators that started on the same piston engine aircraft from the WW2 era. Just imagine a pilot trying to do that in an F-35C! I have a feeling the drag on the canopy wouldn't even allow it to open or would immediately push it back down, but it would be hilarious to see.

@RCAvhstape 4 ай бұрын

In yhe days before zero zero ejection seats pilots needed all the help they could get if things went wrong on landing. If the plane crashes on deck and catches fire punching out was not an option, only way to live was to jump out and run for it.

@stickiedmin6508 4 ай бұрын

@@RCAvhstape Good point. If the plane should unfortunately end up in the water, escape would be much, much easier if the canopy was _already_ open.

@RCAvhstape 4 ай бұрын

@@stickiedmin6508 yeah, definitely

@martkbanjoboy8853 4 ай бұрын

Thank you for the choice of thumbnail pic. 😊

@Jon.A.Scholt 4 ай бұрын

Anyone else looking forward to when he gets to the early Grumman jet fighters like the Panther, Cougar and Tiger? It would be awesome to see that set of Grumman aircraft get a video like the recent Hawker video he did (I feel like Grumman's history is far to expansive to do all in one video). In any case, can't wait for those early Grumman jets!

@karlfranz3819 4 ай бұрын

I'd love to see a video on the insanity of Italian starfighter upgrades.

@RCAvhstape 4 ай бұрын

I'd like to see a video about the entire Grumman cat family, from the Wildcat to the Tomcat.

@AndrewGivens 4 ай бұрын

I think we've had the Panther - I might be wrong, but I think we have. - *sharp intake of breath* - We... we haven't. Oh my gosh. Sorry! Yeah, I too want to see a video on the premier four-ship wing-to-wing formation Atomic Monster slayer from every B-movie up until 1969.

@Jon.A.Scholt 4 ай бұрын

@@AndrewGivens I did a check of the titles of his videos before I posted to be sure and didn't see anything. Could've missed it though, but I'm pretty sure there hasn't been an episode on it.

@stickiedmin6508 4 ай бұрын

I'd be really keen to see videos like this one, comparing and pointing out the development of, and differences between different versions of planes within a certain 'family' - the differently sized Banshees in this one, or between the Panther and Cougar. There's plenty of stuff available to _read_ about such things, but it's always much easier to visualise when there's a video like this one that _shows_ the difference.

@billballbuster7186 4 ай бұрын

Great presentation. One of the first naval all-weather fighters to enter service. I was lucky to see one at the USMC Flying Leathernecks museum when it was at Miramar. It is certainly a very impressive aircraft.

@cliffalcorn2423 4 ай бұрын

Another great mini documentary on the aircraft of naval aviation. Thank you,

@ReviveHF 4 ай бұрын

The F-3H Demon was even better in terms of speed and cockpit visibility. But still can't go beyond Mach 1.1, so it was phased out of service once F-8U2 Crusader was available.

@neiloflongbeck5705 4 ай бұрын

But that wasn't in service until 1956.

@petesheppard1709 4 ай бұрын

Such a pretty aircraft. AIUI, it was badly let down by its engines.

@ReviveHF 4 ай бұрын

@@neiloflongbeck5705 Also retired from service after 8 years.

@ReviveHF 4 ай бұрын

@@petesheppard1709 And the Navy wanted a dedicated anti bomber Interceptor, so the Demon's design evolved into interceptor called F-4H1 Phantom(later redesignated F-4A).

@neiloflongbeck5705 4 ай бұрын

@@ReviveHF lots of aircraft had short service lives back then

@jeffjames1743 4 ай бұрын

I'm hoping that you will do a deep dive on the F-8 crusader and the Super Crusader descendent aircraft. Thanks for your great research.

@user-og2xc5lb2p 4 ай бұрын

Could you do a video on the AVRO arrow or other Canadian military aircraft such as the CF 100 Canuck or cl 84

@huskergator9479 4 ай бұрын

Love your content, brother! Always excellent. It never ceases to amaze me that we're talking about a 40's design. The range, ceiling, speed had to be almost unbelievable in it's time. The shot of the Banshee formed up with the Corsair speaks volumes. Thank you so much!!

@millsnerd 4 ай бұрын

Been waiting for this one! Canada mentioned

@Jon.A.Scholt 4 ай бұрын

@millsnerd Have you ever watched the KZfaq channel, Polyus? It's of similar quality and focuses entirely on Canadian Aerospace projects. I'm not Canadian myself (though as a Michigander I visited Windsor plenty of times when I turned 19!) but I still found the channel to be great.

@petesheppard1709 4 ай бұрын

@@Jon.A.Scholt +1 for Polyus!

@millsnerd 4 ай бұрын

I'm a subscriber. Thanks for the recommendation, regardless :)@@Jon.A.Scholt

@user-en9zo2ol4z 4 ай бұрын

A very nice and well-informed coverage of a now, less well known, but highly significant step in the gradual adoption of jets to carriers. An area fraught with many significant challenges.

@pastorrich7436 4 ай бұрын

Standing ovation! I guess this opens the door to doing a study on the F3D?

@RCAvhstape 4 ай бұрын

Loving this channel. And you know it's getting bigger since haters are starting to show up. Losers can't stand it when others win.

@Jenkss 4 ай бұрын

Great way to end a Friday! Thanks for the upload mate.

@mey.tomhero4876 4 ай бұрын

Lol for me it’s the start of a Friday

@glennllewellyn7369 4 ай бұрын

Makes a great slope soaring design too!

@warhawk4494 4 ай бұрын

Awesome video man. I'm glad your doing videos on the early years of jet development. Other channels have but I like your style of it. Cheers

@timothyirwin8974 2 ай бұрын

That is a Panther at 10:38 wonderful footage. Hope to see RCN carrier Banshee before it is over.

@jonathanhudak2059 4 ай бұрын

Great video and explanation, love your channel! So cool these were in service at the same time as Panthers too!

@geschirr9190 4 ай бұрын

Great video. I like the comparison to the hornet vs superhornet. No one knows why the banshee was called the "banjo/big banjo"?

@tonybutler3502 4 ай бұрын

Thanks so much, have been an aircraft enthusiast since mid 1960s and didn't know much about the "Banjo". Great channel

@johnstirling6597 4 ай бұрын

Keep em coming!

@I_am_not_a_dog 4 ай бұрын

All of these first-generation jets look so incredibly slick without those dang wingtip tanks. I understand they were essentially required - and even conferred some aerodynamic stability, at least on some airframes - but they look so, so much better without them, IMO. One thing that always strikes me is how similar the Banshee looks to the Shooting Star, especially sans wingtip tanks Anyways, great video, as usual!

@justforever96 2 ай бұрын

Oh, do the F3H next! Another little known jet, it's interesting because it's visibly the immediate predecessor of the F4H Phantom II, and it was a pretty advanced fighter for the era. It may have been underpowered but it served as a fleet fighter for years.

@willdyer3371 4 ай бұрын

I love your presentation of the subject. Keep the videos coming.

@sohrabroozbahani4700 4 ай бұрын

I'm finally here, watched every video and... what a channel 👏 keep this coming man, amazing material... thank you...

@yes_head 4 ай бұрын

I always look forward to your videos. Another good one here -- thanks!

@wangchum349 4 ай бұрын

Excellent video as always! I would love to see some content on 3rd and early 4th gen aircraft as well!

@canuckled 4 ай бұрын

Nose goes up - launch Banshee - nose goes down - launch tracker. The old RCN way of clearing a flight deck

@craig4867 4 ай бұрын

Cool looking aircraft and McDonnell Douglas now Boeing, was known for beautiful aircraft!

@s.marcus3669 4 ай бұрын

Another great video, I cannot WAIT until you do the Douglas Skyray, my favorite USN fighter of the "nifty fifties" era!

@bowencreer3922 4 ай бұрын

Would you ever do a video on the B1? It’s got some interesting history.

@FirstDagger 4 ай бұрын

The channel name should give you a clue as to when he will do a video on any bomber.

@SliceofLife7777 4 ай бұрын

A video comparing the Banshee to the Panther would be interesting. Both aircraft were similar in speed and range. The Panther saw a alot of service over Korea. But the Banshee? They were both in service around the same time, yes? So why didn't the F2H2 serve much , if at all over Korea? Were we afraid the enemy may aquire it's radar technology?

@notapound 4 ай бұрын

The sense I get is that the Banshee was mainly used in the Atlantic and Mediterranean fleets because the Navy regarded it as the better fighter and the Soviets as the main enemy. The Panther was fine for Korea because the Navy did relatively little air superiority work. A comparison is a good idea though. Panther deep dive is coming in two weeks time!

@Getoffmycloud53 4 ай бұрын

Easiest look-up wikipedia for F9F Panther and F2H Banshee At least for Korea the Banshee seems to have been regarded as too slow to go up against the MiG-15. The F9F Panther series seems to have been more effective/successful - culminating in the improved F-9 Cougar. Numbers don’t seem to support the assumption that the Banshee was superior to the Panther.

@SliceofLife7777 4 ай бұрын

@@notapound Excellent. I am anticipating your Panther video. Thanks for this one on the F2H2.

@JGCR59 4 ай бұрын

At 6:05 is that one of the rare Convair R3Y Tradewind turboprop flying boats? They were used as large tankers before being withdrawn

@martkbanjoboy8853 4 ай бұрын

There were many training mishaps aboard the HMCS Bo aventure, and certainly aboard her predecessors HMS Puncher, HMS Nabob, HMCS Warrior, and HMCS Magnificent. A member of Bonaventure's deck crew, operating an aircraft tug, died shortly after he was shot through his back. One of the cannons of the squadron's Banshee a/c somehow was fired unintentionally. The shell was unarmed but at this power level, it makes no difference. This was far from the most awful training accident on Bonaventure. Steady boys, steady.

@madzen112 4 ай бұрын

Banjo is a great name

@piperpa4272 4 ай бұрын

Another grat video, thank you

@gilbertponder5307 4 ай бұрын

Does anyone besides me lose focus on the narration (and the basic facts about the jet) while watching B-roll of a two-wheel landing and ensuing deck emergency? 🤣🤣🤣

@Allan_aka_RocKITEman 4 ай бұрын

@notapound >>> Great video...👍

@Favk21 4 ай бұрын

11:05 What a satisfying emergency landing!

@ottovonbismarck2443 4 ай бұрын

Business as usual: Well done, Sir ! Q: in the photo at 7:20 with the nuclear bomb, the wingtip tanks have two little dark "dots" on the nose which look like gun barrels. What are these ?

@Ensign_Cthulhu 4 ай бұрын

9:20 I think you meant to say "thirty six hundred pound thrust" there. A 36,000lb engine in this size and weight class would probably be difficult even today, with not much of a lifespan.

@petesheppard1709 4 ай бұрын

I caught that, too. He got it right a few seconds later.

@justforever96 2 ай бұрын

Whenever i see them essentially make a new jet but still call it by the same designation i suspect a ploy to get funding. The US wasn't the only one to to this, as evidencedv by the Tu-22 and Tu-22M. The F-18 definitely wasn't the first time they used this tactic.

@Roddy556 4 ай бұрын

Anyone visiting Calgary, Alberta can see one at the Museum Of The Regiments.

@Ubique2927 4 ай бұрын

They knew all about swept wings improving performance. Why did they continue to do straight wings?

@minera7595 4 ай бұрын

Swept wings are very difficult to operate from Carrier back then (namely Essex class), it is only with Korean War that Navy start to seriously consider bigger carrier and swept wing aircrafts

@chriswalton720 4 ай бұрын

Early swept wing aircraft had tricky stall characteristics, and most swept wing designs (including modern ones) have high induced drag at high angles of attack. Early jets were typically underpowered and the engines spooled up slowly, so it was relatively easy to get behind the power curve, which is Very Very Bad on final approach to a small aircraft carrier. Better aerodynamics and more powerful and responsive engines solved these problems. Angled deck carriers helped too!

@Ozchuck 4 ай бұрын

Can someone tell me what the pods on the ends of the wings are?

@justforever96 2 ай бұрын

Always liked these things, it's too bad it's hard to find models of them. They didn't get enough credit even though they were one of the main fighter types in Korea. _The Bridge at Toko Ri_ was about a Banshee pilot in the book. I like the F9F and F-80 just fine, but the F2H gets nothing. And it's such a sleek looking ship, like a longer lower Panther. And i just have a thing for straight wings and tip tanks. Like what's cooler than that? They even look good on the F-5 and F-104. Still not really clear why they went away. Lots of fighters didn't and don't use tip stations, and you don't need them, and you can also find other places for ECM sensors. And i have never heard that they degrade performance (although they must to some degree, right?) such that it is indispensable that they be jettisonable. Besides, lots of jets carried underwing tanks more or less permanently, like the A-4. I think it was pretty rare for an F-105 to ditch them since they almost need them to get home

@malcolmlewis5860 4 ай бұрын

Those missions over soviet territory need to be given a higher profile. So irresponsible, but they also showed that the USA were confident of their capacity.

@bensmith7536 4 ай бұрын

This entire video sounds like how they designed the Phantom.... hmmm thats not good, lets introduce elevator anhedral.... ok another one, shit, we dont have enough dihedral for stability, we cant change the spars, crank up the wingtips and see what happens..... jesus christ now they want a gun, where are we gonna put that..... EDIT: The Brits what want engine?????

@RCAvhstape 4 ай бұрын

Old school

@Akm72 4 ай бұрын

Interesting. I would hazard a guess that the big banjo was the inspiration behind the F6D Missileer, which lead to the F-111B then finally the F-14.

@petesheppard1709 4 ай бұрын

The F6D looks more like a bulked-up F3D Skyknight.

@Akm72 4 ай бұрын

@@petesheppard1709 Could be.

@daszieher 4 ай бұрын

It seems the closest one could get nowadays would be a radar-equipped and AMRAAM-armed S-3😂

@RCAvhstape 4 ай бұрын

AV-8B Harriers are AMRAAM capable.

@daszieher 4 ай бұрын

@@RCAvhstape do they have the loiter time to match?

@rathkoole 4 ай бұрын

Polyus did a great video - HMCS Bonaventure's Sidewinder-Armed Fighter Wing; The Story of the McDonnell F2H-3 Banshee: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/lb6BrbFztM6xk30.html

@Ka9radio_Mobile9 4 ай бұрын

🥰

@timbrwolf1121 2 ай бұрын

Lol the gaff. 36,000 lbs of thrust 😂

@huskergator9479 4 ай бұрын

why the hell did the air force not climb all over this beast? i don't get it...

@gort8203 4 ай бұрын

Why would the Air Force want a slow straight-wing jet when the the faster straight-wing F-84 was already in service and F-86 was about to enter production. Answer is they would not. They also had the F-94 and F-89 Scorpion for night /all-weather.

@branimirgajic7980 2 ай бұрын

All those US Navy jet planes from 1945 until F-4 Phantom II were, despite all the propaganda and selfpraising, bunch of flying logs and circus like objects. No wonder why there are not so many videos with real presentation of them being badly mauled by Mig15s in Korea. Although made in the same period, Soviet Mig15 and its aerodynamics was, compared to these US "logs", like a plane donated to humans by some extraterrestial civilisation. F-4 Phantom II was first US Navy huge step forward. Unfortunately, it was also massacred in the skies of North and South Vietnam with almost 300 shot down. So, do continue with these nice little stories, please, these are so amusing.

@tlmoscow 4 ай бұрын

This video is much better at 1.25x speed.

@melbournesbaddrivers4831 4 ай бұрын

I default to 1.25x on all of his videos.

@cheekibreeki4638 3 ай бұрын

In a rush to finish?

@manuwilson4695 4 ай бұрын

The end of the video is just prattle.

@manuwilson4695 4 ай бұрын

Radar monitoring...the same if not worse than early WW2 versions! 🙄💩

@cjones070 4 ай бұрын

Makes it easy to be sneaky.

@manuwilson4695 4 ай бұрын

@@cjones070 ...prattle prattle prattle 😁

@Sundarsbloodyvagina 4 ай бұрын

828th like!!! Pichai Sundararajan may delete my interaction with you through the comments section, thus "rigging" your pay out results as the algo would be a lie. Nuthin sus though, right?

@Ubique2927 4 ай бұрын

They knew all about swept wings improving performance. Why did they continue to do straight wings?

@RCAvhstape 4 ай бұрын

I think it had to do with the difficulty of landing jets on a carrier with primitive early jet engines. One reason why modern supercarriers were built, too.

@thomasstevenhebert 4 ай бұрын

It was about landing on carriers they needed the lower stall speed that the straight wing provides.

@Ubique2927 4 ай бұрын

They knew all about swept wings improving performance. Why did they continue to do straight wings?