The FH-1 Phantom Was A Pioneering Jet Fighter That Deserves More Recognition

[@mbryson2899]

The early jet age must have been a heck of a time for aircraft engineers, manufacturers, and pilots.

[@Legitpenguins99]

Its the most fascinating time of aircraft development to me

[@hertzair1186]

My favorite aviation era…the early jets. 1947-57.

[@Triple_J.1]

That incredible advancement continued up thru the A-12/SR-71. Then the fascination with radar cross sections, and then back to unusual propulsion systems. Future history will show the 90's and early 00's were very interesting indeed.

[@wysoft]

if you have read Tex Johnston's book, they were pretty much handed experimental aircraft and told to fly them as hard as they could to see what they could take. it does sound like it was a blast for them, if not incredibly dangerous.

[@hertzair1186]

@@wysoft …yes I have his book “Jet Age Test Pilot”.

[@ytorwoody]

This is the best "run-down" video on a post war relatively unknown aircraft that I've ever seen. Normally, I'll watch a minute or so of the video and move on. This one kept me watching through to the end and the end time spent was well worth spending. The fight that never happened was a great what-if. Thanks.

[@rudyyarbrough5122]

I've never heard you before and to be honest, many Britsh commentators swallow their words and it is very hard to follow them. But you speak very clearly and have none of the British-speaking idiosyncrasies. Your motherly speaking of the Phantom is very refreshing since many talk of the older planes by pointing out all of their shortcomings. I think you did a very good job of proving that the Phantom was the grandfather of the jet carrier-based fighter. I thoroughly enjoyed your presentation. BTW, I flew the follow on F4 Phantom and loved every minute of it!

[@georgeburns7251]

I always feel British speaker mumble. I like your term better. Also, I agree 100%

[@robertgrey6101]

@rudy "Many British commentators swallow their words". British speakers speak through their open mouths unlike Americans who speak through their nose giving a gawd awful accent which makes me turn off the channel. Swallow their words INDEED !!

[@robertgrey6101]

​@@georgeburns7251 "Mumnle" nothing!! You Americans must learn to speak through your mouth and not through your nose. Your nasal accent is sickening!!

[@goddepersonno3782]

you can imagine how futuristic those early Naval jet aviators must have felt operating this sleek, simple, and ground breaking aircraft. Maybe a bit similar to how pilots feel flying an F-35 for the first time. Simple controls, easy handling, massive jets of burning fuel and air propelling them to new heights and speeds. If only all naval aircraft of the early postwar period could live up to such expectations! It must have been a bit of a damper when the more dangerous and unstable fighters like the F-3H and F-7U presented themselves

[@petesheppard1709]

I've read some accounts, and the piston-trained pilots were awed by the smoothness and relative quiet of those early jets, as well as the lack of torque and, of course, the ease of operation. Overall performance, though, was not as impressive.

[@petestorz172]

Being able to take off from USS Saipan, an Independence class light carrier (not an escort carrier), was impressive. Those ships were small, roughly 1/3 the displacement of an Essex class carrier, with corresponding smaller dimensions.

[@michaels.starnes194]

The Saipan was not a Independence light carrier. She was the lead ship of her own class.

[@Brocuzgodlocdunfamdogson]

Saipan was it’s own class. They were built from keel up as an aircraft carrier, unlike the Independences.

[@andresguerra5748]

Good video, as usual. 👍 Maybe you didn't notice just one tiny error: Min 16:57, "... and then on the 25th of june 1950 North Korean Forces launch a massive attack into the South, the "South Vietnamese" forces are swept aside..." I'm pretty sure that i don't need to explain the error to you. Keep doing this nice work! 😉

[@notapound]

Thanks! That's what happens when you try and make Korean War and Vietnam War content at the same time!!

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

​@@notapound>>> I had to repeat that bit of the video to make sure I heard that correctly. THAT SAID, a totally understandable mistake in an otherwise excellent video...👍

[@janwitts2688]

Ridiculously good for a first of type..

[@IncogNito-gg6uh]

Although rare, a landing plane accidentally spraying the air above the flight deck with machine gun fire did happen. The lockout when the arrestor hook was extended was wise.

[@petestorz172]

The 15 years or so from 1935 to around 1950 saw incredible changes in fighter aircraft. In 1935, biplanes armed with a couple of .30 caliber (or .303 or 7.7 mm) machine guns were still common. By 1950, swept-wing jet aircraft were becoming the norm, and the .50 caliber machine gun was giving was to 20 mm or 23 mm cannon, and air-air missiles were coming.

[@enscroggs]

I'd move that swept-wing date a year or two forward. Both the MiG-15 and the F-86 were pretty radical in 1950. The first American experimental swept-wing prototype was the Northrop X-4 Bantam, which first flew in 1948. The X-4 took several design features from Me-163 Komet in that it was a semi-tailless design but with jet engines rather than a Walter rocket motor. The X-4 was expected to be supersonic, but transonic instability kept its top speed under 700 mph. The de Havilland DH.108 also followed the Komet's basic shape, but it proved even more unstable than the X-4. Consequently, straight wings and conventional tails persisted into the 1950s.

[@aymonfoxc1442]

Love the anecdote about the beach belly flop and take-off!

[@leroyabernathy9934]

You have a superb delivery for these videos, perhaps the best of any I have listened to with these aircraft videos. Your voice, timbre and pace make listening to this technical subject matter pure pleasure. Typically, I can get about half way through a video of this type before I have to stop. Your beautifully measured delivery always carries me to the finish.

[@petesheppard1709]

It was a great first step. Also interesting is how the Phantom started the McDonnell tradition of mystical names and the overall layout of two wing-root mounted engines (the Demon being the unimpressive exception) and high mounted tailplanes. I thought it a bit ironic that the little upstart company eventually swallowed two of the early giants, Douglas and Boeing (though the merged companies are still under the Boeing name, the company came under the management influence of the McDonnell-Douglas team). Do you have an FJ Fury video in the works? That would be really interesting, since it was also the precursor of the F-86.

[@SkyhawkSteve]

There was a lot of the Phantom's design that flowed into the later Banshee and somewhat into the later Demon, Voodoo, and Phantom II. The high mounted tailplane seems to be required when the exhaust exits the fuselage so far forward. I've always wondered why McDonnell kept that configuration for so long, instead of just moving the engine to the back of the fuselage (when using an afterburner) or using a tailpipe for the non-afterburning engines.

[@scootergeorge7089]

@@SkyhawkSteve - The long tailpipe is less efficient although the Scooter did well with one.

[@allangibson8494]

And the FJ series is a direct descendant of the P-51 Mustang…

[@SkyhawkSteve]

@@scootergeorge7089 There are always compromises, but the tailpipe seemed to be accepted in many aircraft. Curiously, the A-6 has engines embedded near the fuselage, somewhat similar to the Phantom I, but uses short tailpipes with curves in them. I was quite surprised the first time I noticed the curves!

[@scootergeorge7089]

@@allangibson8494 - Just because both were designed and built by North American Aviation, does not make the FJ a Mustang descendant. It was an adaptation of the Saber for carrier use.

[@cliffalcorn2423]

Another outstanding documentary on my favorite subject, U.S. naval aviation, thank you. Please keep up the great work.

[@alancranford3398]

I saw my first FH-1 in the San Diego aviation museum during 1972--before someone burned down the place. I was fascinated by the FH-1 and the Ryan FR-1 Fireball--another attempt to keep aircraft carrier aviation relevant in the jet age. The Phantom still had life as a photo-recon platform after it was replaced as a front-line fighter. Nice video. I liked this presentation. Despite the end of WW2 resulting in "no money" for development of the FH-1, getting sixty of these little jets (they are small when viewed in person) allowed the Navy to figure out how to operate jets from aircraft carriers and keep the jets working. The FH-1 formed the baseline carrier fighter jet for newer planes that entered service in the 1950's, especially in terms of service ceiling and combat radius. At high altitudes the piston engines suffered from oxygen starvation even with turbosuperchargers (jet engines were based on the turbosuperchargers in the early days). The FH-1 could out-perform the F8F Bearcat at altitude--until the Phantom ran out of fuel.

[@pyronuke4768]

Oh good, I was starting to think I was alone in knowing about the Ryan FR Fireball. Really cool interim solution if a bit too fragile for repeated carrier landings.

[@huskergator9479]

Thank you so much for these looks at the early jet aircraft and all the associated context, which is everything. Excellent!!

[@Carstuff111]

People often forget the less used aircraft that bridge the gap between technologies. The faster, more powerful and sometimes battle proven early stuff will get all the glory because they exceeded expectations. The FH-1 is a perfect example of being JUST good enough to prove the tech works on a carrier, and managed to be reliable enough to get that data quickly. Then when its replacements were "ready", the FH-1 was quickly kicked aside and forgotten about as the new hotness took over.

[@Triple_J.1]

And often some truly monumental achievements that out paced their contemporaries by a wide margin are maligned. The P-38, F-104, F-35. Just to name Lockheed.

[@jonathanhudak2059]

Despite it being a less popular and almost forgotten early jet I really like the FH-1 Phantom. Thanks for doing a mini documentary on it! Also loved the what if scenario between MiG-9s and FH-1s mixing it up in 1950 so cool!

[@christophercook723]

Great to be able understand the English language spoken by the narrator correctly.

[@newdefsys]

I agree, its great to be able that

[@aymonfoxc1442]

Great video. Thanks for bringing some publicity to this historic jet. The FH-1 was certainly an important aircraft.

[@irondiver2034]

9:22 minutes, love the stories of the old marine flying sergeants. The last one retired in the early 70s, I believe as a Master Guns (e-9). A lot of people don’t know that the corps had enlisted pilots. Semper Fi.

[@Wannes_]

So did the Navy back in the day ... VF-2 was originally named ... the Flying Chiefs

[@paulfrantizek102]

Great to see something on the FH-1.

[@RCAvhstape]

Great video about an obscure jet that deserves to be remembered.

[@bogatyr2473]

One of my favorite looking of the early jets. Just a beautiful little fighter.

[@robertcombs55]

My FAVORITE Site...Thanx!!!

[@TheDarkangelKx]

Amazing content as usual, this channel deserves more subs.

[@silentone11111111]

I love your deep dives into the obscure. It’s so refreshing to hear about something new ❤

[@MrSiwat]

Thanks so much. Great script and so interesting.

[@dubsy1026]

Legitimately my favourite channel to see new uploads from, great stuff

[@Jon.A.Scholt]

Another great video; it would be great to see more videos on the early jet aircraft of the Cold War.

[@sergioleone3583]

Sweet! Once again you have focussed on an aircraft that I've been interested in when I've seen photos of it or read/seen the snippets out there on it. But now I have some very interesting and well presented info to sink my teeth into. Your channel has quickly become one of my favorites, and I always look forward to your new vids. Keep up the great work!!!

[@FirstDagger]

12:43 Bearcat has 4x M3 Browning MG or 4x M3 cannon. Hope you do a follow-up on the Banshee.

[@notapound]

Thanks! I should have checked. I'm starting out on the Banshee. It is a much more in-depth subject as there were so many versions. Really good fun to research though!

[@stinkyfungus]

Keep these comming! You have a very good format here. I'm sure you get requests all the time, but would you consider delving into high performance research aircraft of post WW2? There were some pretty wild designs, and crazy stories. I'd be interested in what you can turn up.

[@huskergator9479]

Thank you for this! I always wondered about the first Phantom. Excellent as always!

[@therocinante3443]

You sir are a true gem. Never stop telling us aircraft stories!

[@shamekperson8681]

Pound, I really enjoy all your analysis of aviation history subjects. I would really look forward to you covering the Iran vs Iraq war. So many interesting morsels of information including an alleged helo vs helo kill. Thank you for being so balanced and thorough. Love your work.

[@petesheppard1709]

GREAT Marine Corps anecdote for the USMC's 248th Birthday--well done and thanks!! 😎

[@marcusott2973]

Much awaited, much appreciated. I am looking forward to excellent insights as always from you.

[@marktuffield6519]

There is something about the straight wing jets that I find very appealing. One aspect of the design that I don't think you mention was its ability to "kneel" which was carried through into the early Banshee variants and I believe was supposed to aid in the "spotting" of the aircraft on the deck or in the hangar area. The Banshee also featured the same wing design of the Phantom. Great video, with some fabulous footage and photographs, thank you!

[@glitchedmatrix55]

By kneel do you mean slightly raising the rear landing gear, thus raising the front fuselage?

[@marktuffield6519]

@@glitchedmatrix55 sorry I didn't see your question before now. No, the nose gear is retracted and a small supplementary pair of wheels are attached to the front of the nose. It allowed for the aircraft to be parked much closer together under the tail of the aircraft in front. I guess it wasn't particularly practical operationally, so never really used. If you search kneeling Phantom or Banshee you can find photos of the system being tested etc.

[@glitchedmatrix55]

@@marktuffield6519 Oh, thanks for the info.

[@pastorrich7436]

Excellent installment! Regarding the Phantom's guns, this arrangement was not unlike that of the Lockheed Lightning sans the 20mm cannon. That aircraft was also employed as a night fighter, featuring flash suppressors. The .50s of the Lightning didn't have flash suppressors, that I recall, so it's interesting that the USN felt the .50s of the Phantom a problem. Go fig. Humble beginnings to greatness! Very well done!!

[@notapound]

Thank you for the kind comment - it made my evening! And for the flash suppressor point :) - I'll have a little look and see if other types/ other nations also fitted those.

[@jaws666]

​@@notapoundwhen will the Panther and Cougar videos be coming or will you be covering both of them in the 1 video?

[@tonyennis1787]

Land-based aircraft have superior flight characteristics as you can always get a carrier aircraft and remove the tail-hook, the wing-folding mechanisms, and remove some of the beefiness of the landing gear. This saves a few tons. What's remarkable is that carrier aircraft are competitive at all.

[@brianrmc1963]

These videos are so cool. I hope you never stop.

[@Wannes_]

12:44 The Bearcat only had 4 x .50 machine guns, not six Though they would be replaced with 4 x 20mm cannon in later -1B and -2 versions

[@jmacld]

It didn't set the world on fire, but it didn't let anyone down. Great closing.

[@chrisstahl2653]

I really love how fairly and objective you always evaluate aircraft, even those lesser known or having a bad calling. I really enjoyed this video. The Phantom should actually be way more famous than it is as the U.S. Navy's first jet fighter. It was also a really good-looking plane, compared to some other early jets.

[@MM22966]

I really enjoy these. You go out of your way to put the watcher IN the period, to understand the merits of the aircraft not just in terms of specifications, but what the people actually flying them would feel.

[@mackgriffin7397]

so Phrist of the the Phablous Phantoms.🎉

[@steveclark5357]

little steps, this is how we grow,good presentation , very enjoyable , subbed

[@notapound]

Thank you!

[@minera7595]

I've known the FH Phantom for a while, as the pioneer of McDonnell line of aircraft (And one of Naval jets pioneer, as you said), but beside that, the data on this plane i can find was very scarce (maybe as scarce as MiG-9?), so, I really appreciate you for this!

[@B1900pilot]

I think the reason that it gets little recognition is that it this type wasn't in service for very long. McDonnell was already at-work on it's replacement the "Banshee".

[@saiajin82]

Another awesome documentary on a forgotten and misrepresented aircraft, thanks!!

[@doktorwyzzerd]

great video as always. Ive come to really look forward to your new posts every week, please dont ever stop.

[@wingmanjim6]

An excellent presentation - hopefully we will see more videos from you - looking forward !! Thank you, sir .

[@chandlerwhite8302]

This is a great video! Got a thumbs up and subscription from me.

[@Airsally]

Well done sir, love the early and classic jets . Things happened fast back then . Technology was moving fast.

[@luvr381]

Your videos just keep getting better, excellent work!

[@pf6797]

It’s actually quite elegant in it’s simple nature

[@jonwatkins254]

Great Video! Looks and sounds like a wonderful airplane!

[@earlthepearl3922]

Another wonderful, informative presentation. You’re spoiling us with your consistent excellence!

[@mpetersen6]

A far better looking aircraft, and likely much better, than the clumsy Vought Pirate.

[@gort8203]

5:55 "The tricycle landing gear was possible because there was no propeller needing ground clearance." The P-38, P-39, F7F, and others would call that preposterous. What kept a nosewheel off most prop fighters was inconvenience of the nose mounted engine.

[@notapound]

Thanks for the comment. It's a good point - I should have been clearer. And I forgot about the Tigercat. That one deserves a video at some stage.

[@historybuff222]

Awesome vid, I love your channel!

[@jasonz7788]

Great work Sir thank you

[@wolumandreas1130]

Excellent, as expected.

[@handy335]

Very good! Thanks!

[@Zephirot080]

Your voiceover work is improving video to video. Keep up the great work. Only one thing: you said south vietnamese instead of saouth korean

[@aymonfoxc1442]

The Moonbat looks sexy.

[@311Bob]

Subscribed! very excellent submission

[@crazypetec-130fe7]

I'd love to learn more about the Moonbat. That was a wild looking design.

[@joeperson4792]

Whoops, South Vietnamese at 17:05. Still a great video on a mostly for feasibility reasons, why the navy adopted this aircraft. By 1954 McDonnell already had stirrings of the Phantom II. Says a lot about the jet age.

[@FPG25-b3y]

Great video

[@i-love-space390]

I was hoping you would go into the Banshee, since it is an extension of the Phantom 1. There are so many fascinating Navy fighters from that period. It seemed like the lifespan of a fighter in the 1940-50s was only 5-10 years. Now with the maturity of designs today, a fighter might serve for 30-40 years. I think the only reason we are developing another Stealth Air Superiority fighter is because the F-22 is essentially a 2nd Gen stealth fighter, sort of like the early jets.

[@kevinvilmont6061]

You had me at Marine and rocket.

[@VettemanLT5]

Roosvelt Roads was actually in a small town in the east of Puerto Rico called Ceiba. I remember visiting many years ago. It's been decomissioned since 2004 I believe. Now an airport.

[@alphakky]

If you didn't know, Navy used a different designations than the Air Force In this case F is fighter, H is McDonnell, since this was the first model, hence FH. -1 was the first model. So the F4H was the fourth McDonnell fighter. Not to be confused with the F4U from Vought, and the F4D from Douglas.

[@Echo1234]

Nice video. Subscribed 👍🏻

[@ronjon7942]

11:39 I now know why I’ve always had difficulty telling the Phantom and Banshee apart.

[@jeffyoung60]

The F8F-1 Bearcat had only four (4), 0.50 caliber heavy machine guns. The F8F-2 Bearcat had four (4), Hispano 20mm cannons. The Phantom's top speed was only 480 mph. As a first Navy jet, it was a good attempt. The US Navy was quick with higher-performance successor jets.

[@jehb8945]

The little FH-1 was a damn good start and keep in mind the United States Navy was at the very least leery about operating pure jet aircraft from carriers as there was a couple of mixed propulsion aircraft also in development including the Ryan FR Fireball and the Curtiss XF-15C so the usn deciding to go with a pure jet aircraft alone was pretty daring and the fact that it did everything reasonably well was reassuring to the United States Navy that they wouldn't have to take a baby step towards jet propulsion Of course you have a log is that the fh1 was developed though not radically so into the f2h banshee which took the shape of the phantom and enlarged it and it also vindicated the phantom

[@bobbrownjr]

I really enjoyed your video immensely. My mom worked in the FH-1 during WW-II. She was not an engineer but helped the McDonnell engineers in mathematical calculations. See comments below.

[@jb6027]

Excellent, as always! Please do a video on the Lockheed F-80. Nobody has done a decent Shooting Star video yet.

[@twrea]

Well stated points, amazing visual storyline was good all around! Jet prop hybrids would be a good topic, like the Fireball..

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

Comparing the early naval jets against the contemporary land-based jets is similar to the situation before WW2 when compating the equivalent piston-powered naval and land-based aircraft.

[@minera7595]

It's like some experience got resetted with the introduction of jets; an interesting note indeed

[@57thStIncident]

Agree. Adapting to jets was a lot like adapting to the all-metal monoplane in the environment where low-speed approaches is so critical. And the deck handling is so orchestrated in close quarters that I can see why the USN would be somewhat conservative and measured during adoption.

[@Atpost334]

Great job of highlighting the growing pains that the Navy had switching to jets for carrier duty. USN aircraft were very comparable, in performance, to Army Air Corp aircraft during WWII with the early Wildcat, Hellcat and Corsair being similar, in performance, to the P-40, P-47 and P-51. Not initially the case when switching to jets. This did carry into the Korean conflict as well. The video doesn’t mention this, but the F8F Bearcat did not see any combat action in WWII. Otherwise, great video.

[@mochabear88]

ty

[@jimsvideos7201]

Well said.

[@2uiator325]

Hello, another excellent video. Concerning the Bearcat vs Phantom climb rate, those numbers most likely reflect the initial climb rates for those aircraft. A better climb rate comparison would be times to 10,000’, 20,000’, or even up to 30,000’. While the Bearcat had a great climb rate by virtue of its light weight and powerful engine, I suspect this was primarily at low altitudes and the Phantom exceeded the Bearcat’s climb performance as altitude (and also speeds increased). There’s a great report of a Pax River fly off test available somewhere online that compares a Bearcat(?) vs a P-80 made in the late ‘40s or early ‘50s that clearly shows the advantages of jet powered aircraft. Much of the advantage comes from a jet’s ramjet effect…as speed increased, so did the engine’s power output, whereas a prop’s power is limited and decreased at high speeds. If I can find it, I may post it here.

[@kurttate9446]

A couple of things. I think, at least initially, the Bearcat only had 4 .50 caliber Brownings. The graphic comparing the Phantom with the P80 is actually showing the planform of my favorite early jet, the Grumman F9F Panther (that is one good looking aircraft).

[@petestorz172]

The USN still has a strong preference or requirement for twin engines and the ability to fly on just one engine. I heard of this being a factor in the context of the fly-off between the XF-16 and XF-18 (which was a navalized XF-17).

[@gort8203]

Everybody likes to repeat that because the Navy wanted the F-18 instead of the F-16. But the number of single-engine Navy fighters and attack aircraft far outnumbers those with twin engines, and the Navy's latest fighter is again a single-engine.

[@petestorz172]

I worked, in the late 70s, at the company that produced the F-18's display suite (I saw the S/N 001 display set prepped for shipment and aligned HUD S/N 002). That is the "story" that was current in our work group (and the correct designation for the aircraft in the fly-offs was "YF", mea goofa). You are correct in terms of the range of jet fighters the USN has used through the decades. At the same time, the fighters chosen in the 60s and 70s, the F-4 Phantom II, the cancelled F-111B, the F-14, and the F-18 were all twin engine.

[@RCAvhstape]

@@gort8203 True, but it's not wrong that at least some in the Navy historically preferred redundancy in engines. That was a factor why the Navy preferred the XF-17 design over the F-16.

[@gort8203]

@@petestorz172 The first three aircraft you just listed had to be twin engine to have the performance desired (speed and load). At the time a single engine could not do the job.

[@gort8203]

@@RCAvhstape Apparently you did not comprehend my comment, which is that I do not believe that story. Of course the Navy said that, but the real reason was to prevent having the F-16 forced on them. The F-18 as developed did end up with attributes more suitable for the dual role the Navy planned for it, but two engines was not the primary attraction of the YF-17.

[@mikepette4422]

The saying, "it is what it is", really applies well here. The FH-1 was the plane the US navy wanted and it gave them what they needed at that exact moment in time...experience flying off and landing jet aircraft from carriers. This was something nothing else could have done at that time. Yes later better faster planes came along but that wasn't for another 2 years or more. How many naval aviators were trained on those 60 jets for take off and landing at a time when nobody else in the world could do that or even had a jet plane capable of realistically flying off carriers ? Not the Brits not the Russians not anyone else. A 2 year head start and it was all because of this little plane.

[@Prolificposter]

17:05 Umm, South Korean, not South Vietnamese. Nonetheless, I had never heard of this plane before finding this channel today! It is a very well done documentary.

[@perh8258]

Wild that bearcat is so close to Phantom in the air. Piston planes held the time to climb 10K into the 50's from the fact that they can accelerate faster than early jets.

[@SeannoG1]

The Fictional FH-1 vs. MiG-9 scenario sounds a lot an account of the Japanese war in Harry Turtledove's "Joe Steel"

[@ponyote]

"It also liked to catch on fire." Ah, another fine airframe.

[@pjotrtje0NL]

15:47 the range isn’t bad, it’s like the current F/A-18C 😉

[@thebudgieadmiral5140]

Personally, I picture a night fighter version of this thing, with the belly tank filled with machine guns or maybe a pair of 20mm, and a radar in the nose. Probably a second crewman replacing one of the tanks in the fuselage behind the pilot. She would suffer even more from her short range but the layout seems very favourable for such a modification. Maybe some expanded wing roots can hold the needed fuel.

[@Rom3_29]

Mig 9 was not able to use its big nose cannon as the fumes caused jet to flame out. Soviets installed small wing apparatus preventing cannon fumes getting sucked in to jet.

[@bobbrownjr]

My Daddy and Mom - The Soldier and the Mathematician in World War II My dad (Bob Brown) was in WW-II and was at Jefferson Barracks in St. Louis for basic training. My mother (Kathryn Nelson Brown) majored in math at the Georgia State College for Women. She joined my dad after they were married early in the war. It was in St. Louis that mom got a dream job at McDonnell Aircraft which had a “top secret project” to design and build the first jet plane to take off and land on an aircraft carrier. Mama assisted the engineers in performing math analysis that needed to be done and used a mechanical calculator to get the results the designers needed. On the drawing board and on its first three test flights the plane was called the experimental XFD-1. On July 19, 1946, during sea trials the XFD-1 made the first takeoff and landing by a US jet powered aircraft on a Navy carrier the USS Roosevelt CVC-42. In production, the plane became known as the FH-1 Phantom Fighter. Mama felt very proud to have played a small part in this important war effort. Mother’s story began to stir my interest in engineering and science. Bob Brown, Jr.

[@johnmoore8599]

The Navy wanted two engine aircraft for the resiliency and a backup. This hurt the early naval jets compared to USAF jets, but it makes sense when you are flying over a big ocean with an early engine technology. If the early jet engines were as reliable as the rotary piston engines (which they weren't), naval jet aviation development might have been different. But, you see this engineering conservatism throughout the US Navy. They even had jet engine seaplanes at this time. Those were interesting in their own right. Thanks for the great vid!

[@allangibson8494]

The English centrifugal jet engines were as reliable as the previous generation radial engines - axial flow engines are much harder to build reliable versions (as the Germans discovered with none of their engines lasting longer than twenty hours in service while the first generation British engines started at two hundred and went to a hundred times as long by the 1950’s).

[@johnmoore8599]

@@allangibson8494 Yes, you are correct, but it was bulkier than the axial engines and you could see the difference in the F80 Shooting Star footage in this video. Given the engineering requirements, such an engine wouldn't work - unfoldable wings and such, unless you made a naval version of the F80. I'm sure the navy looked into it and rejected it for some reason. Yes, the engines would last the entire lifetime of the airframe or more. Thanks for reminding me. But, the axial engines were a superior design once the alloy problems were sorted out.

[@budgiekiller2]

Following a Canadian gov't tradition of waiting many years until a desired weapon was obsolete and out of production... Canada procured 39 second-hand Banshees from the United States Navy, the McDonnell F2H-3 Banshee was the only carrier-based air defence jet fighter used by the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN). Banshees were in service from 26 Nov 1955 to 12 Sep 1962, operating from the small HCMS Bonaventure. The RCN lost 12 of its original 39 Banshees to accidents. Until the McDonnell CF-188 Hornet, the Banshee, also nicknamed the "Banjo", was the only Canadian military aircraft armed with AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles. The Banshee was a rugged and reliable, all-weather, fleet defence and ground attack fighter. In 1951, the RCN expressed an interest in replacing their obsolete Hawker Sea Fury piston engined fighters with Banshees, drafting a $40 million deal for 60 new aircraft. Unfortunately, due to fiscal wrangling in the Canadian Cabinet, the purchase was not approved until after Banshee production had been shut down in 1953. The RCN was forced to acquire second-hand USN aircraft at a cost of $25 million. The aircraft were delivered from 1955 to 1958, and flew from HMCS Bonaventure and as NORAD interceptors from shore bases.

[@mohammedsaysrashid3587]

It was a remarkable first step of designing Jet engine aircraft's by Macdonald company ( FH-1 Phantom 👻 👽) aircraft .nice video.