The P-64; North American’s “Little Bull”

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

*Correction* NAA built the Apollo command and service module, not the landers as depicted at the start of the video.

[@davidb6576]

[Grumble, grumble, Grumman...]

[@RobSchofield]

Mutter mutter Grumman COUGH

[@steveshoemaker6347]

Thanks Mr Ed Shoe🇺🇸

[@johnlovett8341]

Good channel, but this a mistake that calls for a major edit.

[@chonqmonk]

Your channel is great!

[@donjones4719]

Sacrelige! The Lunar Module was made by Grumman. It landed men on the Moon. North American Rockwell built the Command Module and Service Module. They brought men to lunar orbit. Both were equally crucial parts of the mission, but hey, accuracy.😊

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

My bad!

[@briancavanagh7048]

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Quick Change the opening launch of a Space Shuttle instead!

[@dakchang63]

😜

[@robertsabasteanski4682]

You’re gonna get a ton of these comments until you change the LM to the CSM…

[@wbertie2604]

Clearly, the LEM is a naval aircraft. It landed on a sea on the moon and on Earth.

[@68Boca]

Great video Ed, As a little follow up to the Peruvian NA-50. Having a Peruvian partner, I lived in and visited Lima many times. Las Palmas has a small Museum, can confirm the plane is still there, as of a August this year. Don't think it's flying but looks in restored condition, although it was outside in the forecourt. (given Lima has almost no rain and is very dry, probably not problem). I should have taken a photo!! But I really didn't know anything about it. My partner's nephew is in the air force, which is why we were there, I'll get him to send some pics.

[@Skipper0303]

Hi I can confirm that the NA-50 was beautifly restored and its placed in a pedestal on the forecourt of Las Palmas Airbase near Quiñones monument. Hopefuly one day it'll be placed in a museum safe from the weather and the Humidity. I heard it couldn't be restored to a flyable condition beacuse the corrosion badly damaged the spars, engine and interior making it too expensive and dificult to restore.

[@richarddyson4380]

The similarities to the CAC Boomerang is quite stunning.

[@brettcoster4781]

But so too are the differences, particularly the tail, armament, and engine.

[@Completeaerogeek]

Put them side by side and you will see that despite their lineage they are quite different.

[@martkbanjoboy8853]

There is a beautiful interview with CAC Boomerang pilot Jack Hearn "Boomerangs over Bougainville" on yt. It is incredible.

[@MM22966]

I think this was...not your best, but certainly your cutest documentary, Nash. Not the flashiest plane, but a neat little story tied up with a bow and a bit of modern footage that warms the hearts of aviation enthusiasts.

[@coleparker]

Interesting. Especially about its use by the Peruvians. We tend to overlook much of South American history.

[@jimdavis8391]

I see what you did there 😏

[@radiosnail]

Extremely interesting. I had read of this fighter before, but had failed to draw the obvious parallel with the Commonwhealth Boomerang.

[@mickvonbornemann3824]

Of course, both are single seater fighter updates of the Harvard trainer.

[@joeschenk8400]

Ah....a video on the Boomerang would be nice...thanks for this on the P-64. I like these obscure aircraft. Oh and I see the other comments on the Lunar Module, which by the way was built near my home.

[@peteanderson2533]

This story popped in my head as similar to the Boomerang!

[@allangibson8494]

The Finns built a similar variant.

[@michaelgautreaux3168]

👍👍 many thanx Ed, all round.

[@TonyScurr-k6q]

Thanks Ed, always good 👍

[@geraldeverett9612]

That was Gruman that made the Lunar Excursion Module. Not North American.

[@briancavanagh7048]

When it was mentioned that the wing tips were modified, after more speed or simplify to production, it occurred to me that this aircraft would have been North American’s perfect test specimen to test out the laminar flow wing. Time constraints would have been very tight once the British Purchasing Commission placed their order for what was to become the Mustang but one wonders if their was any record of any aircraft being modified, possibly even before the order?

[@paoloviti6156]

Very interesting video regarding the P-64 that I never heard about it, yes I can be quite ignorant sometimes! Seriously I had a look on Wikipedia and saw that 7 NA-58 were purchased by the Peruvian Air Force , which nicknamed it Torito ("Little Bull"). 6 additional Na-68 was to be shipped toThailand but was confiscated by US Army for training. Good job 👍👍

[@morteforte7033]

Always love these tiny niche aircraft that ive never heard of, awesome video!!!😁 and had to wairlt right to the end for you to add in how it looks like the cac boomerang...if you squint hard enough. 😏

[@hertzair1186]

Incidentally, the F-86 and F-100 (as well as the P-51 Mustang) were designed by German-born and educated engineer Edgar Schmued. Later at Northrop he designed the T-38 Talon and F-5 Tiger. And no one knows his name.

[@brettcoster4781]

And the Australian equivalent, the CAC Boomerang, was designed by the Austrian refugee Fred David, late of Heinkel, Aichi, and Mitsubishi.

[@brettcoster4781]

@Michael Cohen Colonel Klink was especially remembered, if you're of a certain (but unfortunately great) age. I remember him well.

[@thelandofnod123]

@Michael Cohen He also sported terrific eyewear.

[@robbudden]

sweet, thanks Ed, again I'm happy educated by you

[@53jed]

Dang! The first time I looked at it, I thought, 'That looks a bit like a Boomerang.'

[@silmarian]

I'm always of (at least) two minds when it comes to flying one-of-a-kind artifacts. On the one hand, I'm delighted to see the old birds in the air again. On the other hand, a plane in the air is far more likely to crash than one on static display. On the other other hand, learning how the old engines and avionics worked seems like a good thing as there's always a discrepancy between what the manual (or god help us, memoirs) says versus reality.

[@Splattle101]

This thing has almost exactly the same technical lineage as the RAAF's Boomerang fighter. The Boomerang was a development of the Wirraway trainer, which was itself a locally-made variant on a North American design.

[@brettcoster4781]

In fact, the Wirraway was a variant of the Na-16. It had a different rudder design than the later AT-6 trainer, more Curtiss-like. The Boomerang was based on the Wirraway structure, although, in the end, heavily modified. It also used the locally-built engine used in the Bristol Beaufort (also being built in Australia by the Department of Aircraft Production, later Government Aircraft Factories) the Pratt and Whitney R-1830.

[@Rabbit_AF]

Yeah! Wisconsin was mentioned in an Ed Nash video

[@ufoengines]

Cool post Thanks !

[@TheCraftedMine]

I love learning about planes I've never heard of before! Thank you. Would love to see a video of my favorite forgotten aircraft:the A5M Claude!

[@stevetournay6103]

It isn't Ed's, but there is a video on the A5M, in the Rex's Hangar series...

[@stevetournay6103]

Not just the wingtip but the whole outer wing panel was different on the NA-68, the leading edge being almost straight while the trailing edge was swept forward, the reverse of the NA-50 and the various trainers. Wing planform of the NA-68 somewhat resembled that eventually seen on the Mustang. The planform change is particularly visible in the recent video of the EAA P-64. BTW several replicas, of varying degrees of authenticity, have been made of these NA-16 based fighters, using Texan/Harvard components. Having the original trainer wing planform, they tend to be nearer the NA-50 than the NA-68 in appearance. A series of light attack bombers developed from the NA-16 also appeared; they're worth a look too...as is the Yale trainer, built for France but eventually operated by both Canada and Germany for training...

[@johnforsyth7987]

Thank you for teaching me about another aircraft that I never knew existed.

[@cherokee43v6]

As I recall from reading the biography of Harrison Storms (Angle of Attack), the P-51 came about because North American was licensed to build Curtis P-40 Warhawks under contract for British Lend-Lease and the Mustang was designed using the lessons they learned from that particular project.

[@kenneth9874]

Not quite, north american was approached by the the british to build p40's but they said that they could build a better plane and did

[@iancurtis1152]

Describing the CAC Boomerang as a “ bruiser” gave me a chuckle.

[@SkinPeeleR]

Another informative video. Thank you.

[@WildBillCox13]

I dunno, Ed. I like it. Two twenties and two MGs. Wonder what the maneuverability was like. WW2 was, as the war before, a battle of promising technologies struggling to reach mass production in time to be topically pertinent. The war started with the jump from 700hp to 900hp engines in top of the line fighters, progressed through 1100hp to 1800hp . . . then to 2000 and, finally, 2000+. Performance did not exactly equal increase of power, since most improvements in HP were saddled with greater TOW of platform*. Top Speeds went up; roll rates at speed were always the USAAF favorite; some nations lagged behind, preferring to maximize performance in other regimes**. When the war began, an F2F weighed 2600lb empty/3800lb max and was powered by a 700hp radial. For a single prop fighter or interceptor plane this was reasonable and pretty much middle of the road. In August '45, by way of contrast, F4U-4 Corsairs were 9200lb empty, regularly topped 14,000lb TOW, and were by then powered by 2400hp radials. Weirdly, check out how the Power to Weight Ratios changed on an accelerated curve for all up weights. The F2 at a smidge better than 1:4. Corsair at 1:5.5. This makes Boom and Zoom tactics seem like the only alternative possible, as at least some US planes became lower powered per unit of weight, had higher wing loadings, and reinforced structure, as time went on. *Emil to Gustav is a good example. Cold War MiG 21 had the same uneven balance of power to weight in successive marks. ** Zero. Cr42. Wirraway.

[@rogerbuettnero3513]

As I recall the EAA P-64 is displayed in the Eagle Hangar along with an early P-51.

[@marioacevedo5077]

Great video.

[@saveyourbacon6164]

It is worth noting that the CAC Boomerang was not the only aircraft derived from a North American Aviation design, that was produced by the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation. CAC, following production of the Boomerang, was designing its own, more powerful fighter, which had the name CA-15. It was to have been powered by a Pratt and Whitney R-2800 radial engine, but when the prototype was more than half-finished, doubts about the availability of the engine led eventually to the decision to fit it with a Rolls-Royce Griffon 61 V-12. It was arranged with NAA to produce the Mustang under licence and 200 of these were built by CAC at Fisherman's Bend, Victoria, with the first making its first flight on April 29, 1945. The CA-15 prototype was given reduced priority, eventually completed and first flew on March 4, 1946. It was an outstanding aircraft, but only the prototype was built. In the 1950's, CAC also arranged with NAA to produce the Sabre jet under licence. This was powered by a Rolls-Royce Avon engine and armed with two 30mm cannon. Look up 'Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation CA-15' on the internet.

[@thelandofnod123]

While not really a derivation of the Mustang, the CA-15 did bear a significant superficial resemblance to the Mustang, although it was in fact essentially a clean sheet design. This resemblance is helped along significantly by the eventual fitting of an inline rather than radial engine. The FW-190 was apparently more of an influence on the choice of design.

[@trooperdgb9722]

And those Sabres were the cause of much jealousy in Korea apparently...being significantly faster than the US models with less powerful engines...

[@thelandofnod123]

@@trooperdgb9722 the first CAC Sabre was delivered to ARDU in 1954. They saw service in Malaya but not the Korean conflict. 77 SQN flew Mustangs and later Meteors in Korea.

[@trooperdgb9722]

@@thelandofnod123 Thanks! I wonder where I heard that engine story?? Did the RAF have Sabres in Korea?? Or is it just one of those myths that pop up... Hmmm

[@thelandofnod123]

@@trooperdgb9722 Not the RAF, but some Canadair built Sabres were sent to the USAF which saw service but not any of the later two versions (5 & 6) that had the Orenda engine, they first flew in 1954. These were considered the “best” of the Sabres although they were still only fitted with 6 M3s, the CAC Sabre had the same power from the Avon but had 2 30 mm Aden cannons which would have been preferable to the M3s. Both the CAC and Canadair versions could also carry early AIM-9s as well. As far as I’m aware only the USAF operated Sabres in Korea. Even the Fury was too late, although the FJ4 Fury had a J65 (Armstrong Siddley Sapphire) fitted and a change to 4 20 Colt mk 12 cannons as well as an improved wing. This may have been the ultimate version of the line.

[@jwrappuhn71]

Excellent.

[@Paladin1873]

Ed, in 1967 I attended the EAA convention in Rockford, IL and saw one of the Thai P-64s on display. If my memory is correct, it was flown during the airshow. I found a KZbin home video of the show. At 9:17 you can see the P-64 sitting among some P-51 Mustangs. kzbin.info/www/bejne/lV6nf5qpbK-tm80 They also had a P-40N flying a the show.

[@williamromine5715]

I didn't even know that Peru and Ecuador went to war in 1941. I'm 80, and should have known about that war. Wasn't there some other conflict going on at the time? Maybe that's why I missed the war in South America.

[@Ryanhothersall]

Another interesting video. How about a video on the CAC Boomerang?. Well known here in Australia, but probably not well known in the rest of the world.

[@w.reidripley1968]

Maybe to scale model builders. I am sure I've seen some for sale. Such a relatively obscure machine might make a tempting R/C flying model project for the skilled scratch-builder.

[@w.reidripley1968]

Really, though. Imagine the kudos when you go to the r/c field and pull one of those out of the back of a ute. And everybody crowds around to look, and like Gadget Hackwrench, exclaim, "Golly!"

[@charlesmoss8119]

I really enjoyed that thank you - also for some reason it had completely past me by that the Texan was a North American product - what an ingenious company it was

[@joevignolor4u949]

I'm going for a ride in a T-6 Texan next week. I've also flown twice in an F-100 many years ago.

[@seanmcardle]

A formidable brawler, that sounds kind.

[@robbabcock_]

Fascinating!

[@sailordude2094]

I'm surprised the Finns didn't get in on that act. Thanks for the obscure fighter video!

[@dallesamllhals9161]

1:06 is that a Tiny person in a Giant plane or the other way...?

[@jean-francoislemieux5509]

looks a bit like a boomerang in profile woops said that before you said it at the end! lol cousins indeed!

[@jacobmccandles1767]

At 5:30, that doesnt even look like a plane, it looks like a Holywood prop!

[@stephengardiner9867]

This aircraft has some unusual and relatively unknown "relatives". Of course, it shows a family resemblance to the series of prop-driven North American Aviation trainer aircraft (AT-6, SNJ and Harvard), the NA-64 (Yale), NA-16, BT-9 etc. BUT the Australian commonwealth Wirraway was based largely on the NA-16 and the Commonwealth Boomerang fighter was, in a rather ironic parallel, also derived in part from the Wirraway. That makes the beast the "second cousin" of the P-64 and there IS a lot of "family" similarity!

[@johnreep5798]

In the ‘90s an NA-50 was a regular at the annual Sun N Fun airshow.

[@MartinCHorowitz]

Grumman built the Lunar Module that landed on the Moon, North American built the Command and Service modules

[@HeliophobicRiverman]

Getting ozzy Boomerang vibes here.

[@LukeBunyip]

Mate 😉

[@thelandofnod123]

Wirraway was a development of the NA-16, the Wirraway then provided the basis to the CAC-Boomerang, so very similar story arc.

[@thelandofnod123]

@@LukeBunyip KZbin asked if I wanted to translate your comment. 😂

[@magicintelligence6625]

One of these days I'm going back to Thailand to visit every military display they have.

[@luvr381]

Seems like an oddly high P- number for it's time span.

[@stevetournay6103]

It does, but then it came into USAAF service almost by accident, when some of the Thai NA-68 batch were taken over. The P designations up to 63 (the Bell Kingcobra) were all assigned by then, many to prototypes that did not end up in service.

[@luvr381]

@@stevetournay6103 Ahh, makes sense, thank you.

[@300guy]

basically an american Boomerang. The P64 is huge, when you put a pilot inside it appears to be the size of a Thunderbolt.

[@johnlovett8341]

Great channel ... and piling on is uncool. Still you 100.00% need to change the intro because of the Grumman v N.A., LEM v thing. I've upvoted the comments already pointing this out but it's important enough to do more. Great channel, great analysis, but with Great Ed Nash power comes great responsibility.

[@CZ350tuner]

The Franco - Thailand war, saw Thailand join the extensive club of countries that have defeated France in war.

[@warbuzzard7167]

[@TheGrant65]

However, Thailand itself folded extremely quickly when it faced a Japanese invasion in late 1941. And, much like Vichy France, Thailand became a kind of unofficial member of the Axis, and actually fought Allied forces, alongside the Japanese in Burma. For that reason, late in the war, the USAAF bombed Bangkok.

[@chetthapapaeng1716]

@@TheGrant65 Thailand's govorment of that era didn't want to be the same as the Nanjing massacre in China.

[@oskarrunhaar6607]

Ed Nash:" ...and the NA T-6 ..." Me:"Harvard! " Ed Nash:" ...Texan ..." Me:😠

[@thelandofnod123]

That’s the give away though really. If preceded by T-6 the name is going to be Texan, whereas in overseas service it’ll just be called Harvard mk l or ll or whatever it happens to be. Much like the F4F Wildcat became the Martlet in British service (with a few exceptions)

[@davidvavra9113]

Oopsie! Glad you caught it

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Lol I didnt. A thousand others did in the comments 😁

[@patrickradcliffe3837]

I wonder if it would eligible to race in the AT-6 class at the Reno Air Races.

[@redbaroniii]

This is similar to the Australian Boomerang. Both used AT6 structures.

[@comentedonakeyboard]

An early work of the Artist

[@KO-pk7df]

Also what about the North American A-28 & T-28, they may have been similar to these early aircraft.

[@donaldgrant9067]

Funny thing. The aircraft companies were building aircraft of all kinds before the war, but none were building tanks. You would think that a lot of companies would be getting order for tanks especially after Germany's Blitz had proven so well in Poland and in France. Funny how that works.

[@pencilpauli9442]

I was thinking the P-64 was like the Boomerang and it's sibling the Wirraway.

[@ross.venner]

I think you over credit the CAC Boomerang. One of it's test pilots reportedly said it was misnamed. "A boomerang was meant to come back." The Boomerang did not, as far as I can see, ever participate in air to air combat, but served well in close air support and target marking roles. It's precursor, the CAC Wirraway, a 2 seat utility/armed trainer did manage to destroy at least one Japanese fighter. That said, a great video.

[@TheGrant65]

The main reason that the Boomerang did not encounter Japanese aircraft was that the IJAAF and IJNAS, in New Guinea, were spent forces by the time it, belatedly, reached the front line. P-40s became available to the RAAF in mid/late 1942, sooner than expected, so the Boomerang was held back. Then in one single US bomber operation, over Wewak, in late 1943 the Japanese lost a majority of their operational aircraft in New Guinea. (And within nine months, they had absolutely ... zero - excuse the pun.) The Boomerang was then just getting into full swing in tac/r, CAS and target marking duties. Had it encountered (say) a Ki 43 or A6M, it would have been an interesting fight; the Boomerang's strengths were in firepower and manoeuvrability, in which it was able to match or even surpass, Japanese fighters - although the latter were obviously much better in the vertical and overall speed.

[@thelandofnod123]

@@TheGrant65 I think low altitude “may” have gone to the Boomerang but anything mid to high would have gone to anything but the Boomerang.

[@brettcoster4781]

@@thelandofnod123 Yes, very much so. The Boomerang was used as an interceptor fighter against Japanese bombers. It couldn't reach the speed or altitude of those bombers but worked as a deterrent, so much so that they dropped their bombs early to escape. But it worked really well in close air support, where its 20mm cannons, 4 x .303 MGs, and smoke bombs were used to great effect. They had a great working relationship with RNZAF Corsairs as target markers.

[@kiwiruna9077]

In that first picture of P-64 @ 1:15 that plane is either huge like a thunderbolt or that pilot is a midget. It looks like he could run around in the cockpit and if not careful, get lost.

[@babboon5764]

Peru 'loosing one not soon after delivery in an acident' sounds more like MUCHO Toro than Torito?

[@SoloRenegade]

If you compare teh P-64 to the Boomerang, don't forget about the P-51 and CA-15 Kangaroo

[@thelandofnod123]

Supposedly the Kangaroo was a reasonably clean sheet design and was more influenced by the FW-190 rather than the Mustang. This would have been more evident had it flown with the intended radial rather than an inline. Although the similarities seem quite striking it is mostly superficial.

[@fatdad64able]

Reminds me of a CAC Boomerang.

[@stevetournay6103]

Good eye; both are developments of the North American NA-16, the NA-50/68 via the Texan and the Boomerang via the CAC Wirraway...

[@mikecimerian6913]

Boomerang uses a DC3 engine. It has a tremendous sound.

[@thelandofnod123]

Especially when the airflow starts going over those gun ports.

[@mikecimerian6913]

@@thelandofnod123 As screaming goes, better than a Stuka. :)

[@thelandofnod123]

@@mikecimerian6913 especially when the Stuka needed actual sirens fitted to get its sound.

[@thelandofnod123]

@@mikecimerian6913 especially when the Stuka needed actual sirens fitted to get its sound.

[@patrickwentz8413]

Can you do a video on the A-27 this planes dive bomber sibling?

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Not yet.

[@hoser20000]

How did they make the p64 before the p51?

[@mickvonbornemann3824]

Well North American started as Fokker's US branch, hence it’s name, with a big investment in it by GM.

[@FeiHuWarhawk]

Same class as the Australian Boomerang

[@thelandofnod123]

The Boomerang was a far better performer really.

[@FeiHuWarhawk]

@@thelandofnod123 Well it had a more powerful engine. Did not shoot down one plane. However supposedly used for ground support. Like to see that history.

[@kalaharimine]

The Wirraway's sister I suppose.

[@thelandofnod123]

Wirraway was a development of the NA-16, the Wirraway then provided the basis to the CAC-Boomerang. So sort of like an Aunt I suppose.

[@chrismartin3197]

Tom Poberzny’s favorite aircraft. (Founder of the EAA

[@crusader5989]

Nice video as always. But saying the P-51 was the best fighter of wwii is a huge overstatement. An average fighter with very good range at the most.

[@crusader5989]

@Cancer McAids wow! I will quote you on this in the future. Exactly my thoughts and you just put on words what i’ve been thinking for decades. Especially the “national pride and personal preference” argument. Has been the P-51’s backbone since August 1945. Don’t misunderstand me, the P-51 is a fine fighter. Now, looks wise, it lags behind at least 10 other wwii fighters at least, it’s a meehh for me. Agree 10000% with what you said. In my case the FW190 is my fav.

[@thelandofnod123]

@@crusader5989 Is FW-190 your favourite or do you consider it the best? If not, what would you see as the best?

[@crusader5989]

@@thelandofnod123 it is in the top 3 of my favorites for sure. The best “fighter” is tough to say. The Corsair (especially late war marks) or the Spit compete for that title imho.

[@thelandofnod123]

@@crusader5989 Very true. I love the Mustang, all variants up to D and the K, even the A-36. Were they the best, I don’t think so, although certainly influential, but that could be said of lots of types. I am very partial to a Tempest though, if for no other reason than someone thought a 36 L sleeve valved H 24 engine was the way to go, it’s pretty too so that helps.

[@crusader5989]

@@thelandofnod123 agree on the Tempest also, one hell of a fighter in wwii. I guess one could support the claim for almost any one of the fighters in the “top tier” from that era/conflict. Looks wise is another story because it is purely personal and subjective imho. I love the FW190A in any version but if you push me, i would end up with a long list of favorites.

[@beargillium2369]

There was a fighter game before 1938?

[@aviation4life640]

I’ve seen a real P-64 fly. EAA owns the worlds only example left, and they fly it occasionally.

[@oldesertguy9616]

Not a bad looking plane. It reminds me of something like the Navion, made for civilian use but sort of resembling a military plane. It appears to be something a lot less intimidating than a P-51 to fly.

[@thelandofnod123]

Like a Cavalier? 🤓

[@jeffmcdonald4225]

As horrible as it was, WW2 produced really beautiful aircraft. The Mustang, The Lightning, The Spitfire. Even planes considered "bad" were sort of beautiful.

[@JohnnySmithWhite-wd4ey]

North American also built a few bombers. Famously the B 25.

[@pavelavietor1]

Hello thanks so much for correctly namingthe United States of America . NOTE they are several other countries with the prefix US, . Please can you makea video about the BT 13 AND 14 , THEY ARE MY FAVORITE TYPE TRAINERS I HAVE EVER OPERATED. Thanks in advance, great 👍 presentation. saludos

[@uberbeeg]

Australia was flying Hawker Demons until 1940.

[@trooperdgb9722]

And many other types of course. The Demons actually soldiered on (presumably in training and other non combat roles) until 1945...

[@uberbeeg]

@@trooperdgb9722 They did get used as target tugs, but I don't know if they continued to the end of the war, the information I had said tehy didn't, but I could be wrong. We got a lot of US types and were producing our own by 1942. The RAAF had a pretty wild collection between 1940-43, all sorts of types, but it got more standardised by 1945.

[@uberbeeg]

@@trooperdgb9722 No, your right, just looked and it said some were still going until '45.

[@trooperdgb9722]

@@uberbeeg Great description of the RAAF fleet then ..lol.. A "wild collection"!

[@thelandofnod123]

@@trooperdgb9722 wild alright. If Series 2 for RAAF serials is huge, something like 60 ish different types being operated at one time or another over the 6 year period. No wonder the RAAF was considered the 4 th largest Air Force at the end of WWII.

[@craigpennington1251]

First I've heard & seen these aircraft types. Boomerangs are cool.> Almost a (Razorback) Zero if you will. That aircraft pictured@4:41time looks like the one used in the Movie: Kelly's Heroes.

[@Completeaerogeek]

The Boomerang was quite different despite their lineage.

[@jaws666]

I always found it some what ironic that despite the company being called North American Aviation and the fact the P-51 is synomous with the U.S.A.A.F it was actually designed and built to meet a BRITISH R.A.F. requirment.

[@fastfreddy80]

Sorry Ed, NA did not build the Landers that went to the moon, Grumman did. NA made the command module that returned to Earth with the astronauts.

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Yep, my mistake. Serves me right for straying into space stuff 😁

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

Hunh ... I wonder why it had a number that was so much higher than the P-51? .

[@donjones4719]

It got the designation fairly late and by then lower numbers had been assigned to various prototypes - some took a very long time to develop. Afaik some got their numbers assigned when they existed only on paper.

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

@@donjones4719 I guess it was something like that ... .

[@SkyWriter25]

Fun fact: The Australian pilots loved flying the boomerang because it always came back. 😁

[@rahulagunasekera8608]

Like the Australian Boomerang fighter.

[@seanhorton3811]

Are you sure the the NA-50 only had 140 HP? That seems awfully low for a plane of that era.

[@dannycork423]

I think he said 840

[@donjones4719]

@@dannycork423 I heard the same tiny mish-mash of the audio and also made it out as an indistinct 840.

[@dannycork423]

@@donjones4719 yeah no I could see how you could hear 140.

[@williamromine5715]

The transcript says 840 hp

[@turkeytrac1]

Nope, not "Texan", it's "Harvard" ( psychology that was it's name in Canada and the UK)

[@thelandofnod123]

Texan in the US and Harvard pretty much everywhere else.

[@christopherandersch1299]

Grumman sent a tow bill to North American for towing the command module Apollo 13, as of this date, they have never paid it!

[@johndyson4109]

I think the best fighter/ bomber of WWII was the P-47 flying tank... 15,000 units made...

[@johnreynolds6499]

I believe they made the A-10 Warthog.

[@chriscarbaugh3936]

That would be Fairchild. Not even closely related. Fairchild prior to the A-10 took over Republic to become Fairchild Republic for a time. Of course Republic made the epic P-47 Thunderbolt; hence the A-10 was named Thunderbolt II, also due to the fact that it was rugged as the P-47. However the damn thing was so ugly Warthog just stuck.

[@eze8970]

🙏🙏

[@ZhongXina01]

American fighter designations are confusing, why did this come before the P-63 and P-61?

[@tomstulc9143]

Because the companies or corporations building airplane named the airplane type it didn't follow any particular pedagogy of designation strictly company by company and whatever they felt like labeling the airplane has

[@greenseaships]

Starting off a video on a North American airplane with a video of a GRUMMAN product in action?? KICK ASS PHOTO BOMB FOR THE IRON WORKS!!! Take THAT, NAA! :D

[@memonk11]

Hey... Grumman Made the LEM.

[@mathewkelly9968]

So a Boomerang Mk -1

[@thelandofnod123]

Nearly. Same trajectory with a slightly different end result, although Wackett did get the idea from NAA.

[@shawns0762]

If a P-36 had sex with a Brewster Buffalo...

[@richhughes7450]

If you belieeeve, they put a man on the moon.

[@thelandofnod123]

Man on the moooon.

[@mikearmstrong8483]

If you have proooof otherwise, we'd love to seeeee it.

[@richhughes7450]

@@thelandofnod123 If you believed there's nothing up his sleeve Then nothing is cool

[@thelandofnod123]

@@richhughes7450 come on

[@01Bouwhuis]

North American got in the fighter business in 1915.....

[@jasons44]

Should have used 2x.50 cal 20mm killed the performance