U.S. NAVY JET FLYING BOATS: Futuristic and exotic 1950s Jet Seaplanes and Turboprop Flying Boats

[@HunterSeeker117]

This era of aircraft makes me nostalgic for a future we never got.

[@mpetersen6]

The Seamaster always puts me in mind of the RAFs Victor.

[@alwayscensored6871]

The Seamaster has a classis swept wing shape. Elegant design.

[@maxsmodels]

I absolutely LOVE those models

[@red66malibu]

Martin P6M Seamaster is one of the best looking planes ever made. I remember seeing them in parts behind Martins plant in Middle River as a kid. It's an absolute shame that none survived.

[@cruzcontrol1504]

My day is made, what fantastic models !!!

[@johnmorykwas2343]

Built both Revell kits in the 50, and still have the 50s kits unbuilt in the boxes.

[@findo12]

Another great presentation on another fascinating but obscure topic of aviation history. Thank you Mike. You’ve provided so much information in such a short time. Definitely the highlight of aviation presentations on KZbin.

[@bradfordeaton6558]

Beautiful. These airplanes should still exist just because they are beautiful!

[@chuck9987]

Sooo Cool! Thanks! I knew about the nuclear B-36 test plane but I had never even heard about the Convair 23A!

[@jamescatrett2608]

Great Looking airframes, sadly none survived to be viewed and studied in museums. Always thought the current Japanese US-2 Seaplane / Flying Boat got it's shape from the Tradewinds design. So what we couldn't get to work out in the late 50s is operational overseas in the 70s, 80s and on........I think the Chinese proposed / operate a similar design sea plane? The Past is the Future, Future is the Past..... Outstanding presentation, as always! Sea Dart story next????

[@AviationHorrors]

Apparently the R3Y was intended as an airborne LST (Landing Ship Tank), i.e. to be able to facilitate amphibious assaults by depositing troops and vehicles directly on a beachhead. However, it was prohibitively difficult to hold the aircraft sufficiently steady on a beach while conducting such a task. But great video Mike, I'd never heard of the nuclear-powered concept!

[@maxsmodels]

OK....I admit it....the Convair X-23A caught me by complete surprise. How did I not know about that one? Oh the shame.....

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

'Guess you would've missed that one if you hadn't been reading AVIATION WEEK back in 1958!

[@chris_hisss]

Wow! Very nice! Thanks for sharing! I had no idea these planes even existed. Great presentation and great seeing your face! 1988 I was 11 and more into WW2 stuff, building monogram B-17s, B-25s, and P-51s. They went together so much better than revell. Always dealt with ADHD so reading wasn't ever much of a strong spot for me, I was all about that box art!

[@bullfrommull]

These flying boats are very bonnie. Thank you.

[@2serveand2protect]

Interesting ! Thank you.

[@bgdavenport]

As you highlighted, my interest in history began with the mini-histories contained in the instructions. I started building my first in 1959 when I was seven.

[@stacase]

And I was that 12 year old kid in 1956. My good friend down the street had the Revell Sea Master model. I remember it well (-:

[@chuckcawthon3370]

Once Again an outstanding presentation. Well Done Sir.

[@utubejdaniel8888]

Once again you have knocked it out of the park! Well done, I love the flying boats.

[@bernadmanny]

I feel like it time for the navy to revisit the concept of jet flying boats. This was fun to learn about.

[@anaetachandler8699]

Absolutely beautiful video. I only can imagine the joy of growing up in the age of these aircraft.

[@vacaalbahaca5485]

One of my fave yt channels; love ur knowledge and work

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Appreciate the comment, thanks!

[@kenmercer8040]

I had an architecture professor tell me that once I had drawn the plans for an historic house myself, I actually "owned" it because I knew it so well. Building models as a kid did the same thing for me and like you, that inspired me.

[@billevans7936]

Cool subject....nifty video

[@paintnamer6403]

Those are some real beauties! Great video too.

[@anaetachandler8699]

Absolutely agree on the writing of instructions. Technical writing is a fabulous skill set

[@naoakiooishi6823]

Wow! Collection of big airplane models

[@petermerz2704]

I love your videos. So much information in them. Thanks for sharing. Happy days and model on! 😎🇨🇦

[@jimcabezola3051]

I had a grey plastic toy of the Convair Tradewind. The nose on it opened in the same way as the plane in your pictures, too. Until NOW... I never knew it depicted a real aircraft! Mahalo for your always-illuminating videos!

[@Slickboot21]

Thanks again, Mr. Machat. Love the scale work. Exquisite!

[@fredsalfa]

Thanks for that that was quiet interesting

[@bertg.6056]

Mike, I built the Revelle model of the Seamaster. Thanks for rekindling my memories. One of your best presentation, thanks !

[@paulbervid1610]

Great video

[@donaldstanfield8862]

Thanks for this look at these rare and awesome aircraft.

[@peterszar]

As soon as you started showing these aircraft models, the first thing I thought was, as you stated, ''Elegant looking for it's time''. I really enjoy the way you get off the beaten path and fill in the gaps of some relatively unknown aircraft I never heard of, and their back stories, cool. Excellent video.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Appreciate the comment, thanks!

[@PatrickRosenbalm]

Mike, you do an excellent job of presenting and discussing your subject. Simple and easy to watch and understand. 180 degrees from what is on commercial TV. I used to enjoy watching shows on History Channel, like Wings, and Discovery Science. Not anymore and not for a while. SO Much hype and over the top dramatization in the narration and music. And those bass bombs every 30 seconds and at every segue. Yeah, there's some of that on YT but I love channels like yours!!! Again, Easy to watch and understand. Just simple, pleasant and tasteful. And very informative!! Especially for us aviation fans!!

[@DefiantAero]

Excellent presentation Mr. Machat! Thank you.

[@davidshell1738]

Fantastic presentation once again Mike. Thank you!

[@danf321]

As a child, I had a hollow plastic toy of the R3Y-2 . Great memories of this toy. Of course, as a seaplane, it spent hours in the tub with me as I loaded and unloaded the cargo nose with plastic army men and toy tanks.

[@ejharrop1416]

Thoroughly enjoyed the video and the information about each flying boat. Very cool stuff, thank you How wonderful it must have been to work in aeronautical design where slide rules were king and drafting the CAD of the day. In the 70’s I had the good fortune to know an elderly designer that once worked for Mr Sikorsky and his recollections of design back in the day. Great video, take care and peace out.

[@johnplaninac9980]

Another great video. The models are great looking. Thanks for sharing. Great work as always.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Thanks John!

[@robertdragoff6909]

What an impressive array of flying boats from back in the day. You’re right when you said how sad it was to not have an example of either flying boat. Too bad someone did snag one of the turbo prop planes and turn it into a water bomber…. And of course there was a nuke powered flying boat…. Great presentation of mid 50s tech. Excellent video

[@johnosbourn4312]

The aircraft you're talking about is the Martin Mars, which is a piston engined aircraft, because it came out before the advent of turboprop engines. The Mars is powered by four R-4360 Wasp Major 28 Cylinder Radial engines rated at 3,500 Horsepower, each.

[@craiglordable]

Thanks Mike for the very informative presentation. These were beautiful airplanes.

[@420BulletSponge]

My dad served on a seaplane tender (USS Albermarle) in the 50's and mentioned seeing the jet flying boats be tested.

[@jetsons101]

Mike proves that you can learn something new every day. Great narration and loads of information, top notch watch. I did build the Revell model of the Tradewind.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Appreciate the comment, thanks!

[@jetsons101]

@@celebratingaviationwithmik9782 Well earned.....

[@stevenschiff808]

Thank you Mike, as always very interesting subject and well done.

[@PhilOutsider]

Thanks. Another great video.

[@PlasticImaginationWorkshop]

Thanks Mike, great video. Have a great day. -David

[@andyb.2582]

Mike, I grew up in East Baltimore and had some connections through friends and family to Glenn L Martin Co. A couple years after i graduated college i was employed in the mid to late 70s by Westinghouse Defense & Electronic Systems at BWI airport and worked in procurement subcontracts . It is now Northrup Grumman. We had 2 or 3 "old timers" in our group that told some great stories about their early days working at Martin on the P6M SeaMaster. They shared some fascinating anecdotes about its development, testing, accidents, short production and eventual demise. I could tell these guys were very dedicated, loved that plane and were devastated when all of the P6Ms (12, I believe) were cut up for scrap. They subsequently were all furloughed by Martin aviation and were luckily picked up by Westinghouse because of the rapid expansion in the use of airborne radar and ECM. The SeaMaster was clearly way ahead of its time and would not look at all out of place in today's Navy. In fact, considering the current maritime and air provocations by the Chinese over Taiwan, an advanced flying boat like a modern day Seamaster would be an asset to our Naval aviation influence and deterrence in that part of the world. Thank you for your presentation, and especially for highlighting a significant part of Baltimore and Martin contribution to naval aviation history.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Wonderful comment, thanks Andy!

[@carlchristensen1628]

Really enjoy your channel Mr. Machat. Your love of the subject comes through and makes the presentation enjoyable and exciting.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Appreciate the comment, thanks!

[@Robutube1]

Hi Mike - superb as always. I particularly enjoyed the different presentation style you used on this one, especially your 'pieces to camera' which I think adds to the overall enjoyment for the viewer. Thanks so much!

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Appreciate the comment, thanks!

[@lacyrider72]

Fantastic. Thanks so much for doing these .

[@GustavoMonasterio]

Thanks Mike for this amazing tour on the 50's Flying boats and their outstanding models! You nailed it once again! Greetings from your #1 Brazilian fan!

[@joeljenkins7092]

Great video and stories. I did not know of these planes till the late Seventies. Fascinating history of the rivalry between the Air Force and Navy about who was going to control the Bomb.

[@stijnvandamme76]

the Seamaster is a bad ass looking plane, always liked the look of it

[@martinpennock9430]

Thanks again for another wonderful video! I had no idea so many of these planes existed. I grew up in the early 60s, and don't remember many model kits of these. But then again, I was really interested in WWII fighters and Century jets at the time. As always God bless you and yours Mr Machat and thanks again for all you do! Take care always! 👍😊🇺🇸

[@N99JH]

As usual, great presentation and I learned a few new things. Thanks.

[@joeschenk8400]

Great video of a time that seems long ago. The models are terrific. Never heard of the Convair 23A. A great way to start the day, thanks for all your work.

[@michaelmartinez1345]

What a great video!!! Mike does a great job with these... I have often wondered why there has not been much done lately for aircraft that can operate from water... These aircraft that Mike featured became classics... And yes, it is a shame that several of these were not set aside for museums... Especially the sleek jets and impressive turbo prop planes... The military advantages of aircraft that can land / take-off from the ocean are numerous... 1)'Runways' that are impossible to destroy. 2)Large Aircraft that can quickly deploy large amounts of supplies/personnel to any carrier group, without having to land on the carrier. 3)Can easily be based at numerous locations that are close to a body of water 4)No brakes or T/R's are required when the plane lands on water. 5) If the plane is over water, and has to make an emergency landing there, the chances of the people on board surviving it are much greater, and maybe the plane can be saved as well...

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Great comment, thanks!

[@tomsvircev1716]

Wow! Thanks for another great video. As someone who takes in all the aviation history I can find, I'm rarely surprised by new information, but I never knew of the British nuclear aircraft program or the surprise Convair nuclear seaplane design you shared. Thanks for all your great programs.

[@richardmoser6051]

Thank you for this presentation I never knew we had a nuclear tanker, bomber, thanks for this news, Thank you Mike.

[@merlin51h84]

Another very informative video Mike. Great work.

[@Jon.A.Scholt]

I've always had a soft spot for flying boats, the PBY Catalina being a favorite. Perhaps because of that bias I've always found the Martin SeaMaster to be one of the most beautiful planes every made; though sadly as mentioned there is not remaining type. It is a true shame since it was in many ways the pinnacle of flying boats.

[@anaetachandler8699]

Such a loss that none survived save what You mentioned. It's amazing how far we came aerospace wise in less than 50 years from first flight one that was shorter than the wingspan of many of the airplanes such as these

[@hertzair1186]

Love the box art on the original Revell S kit of the Tradewind, where it is off-loading on the beach with its bow-up…the ‘Flying LST’.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Agreed!

[@WAL_DC-6B]

Nice presentation of some rare U.S. Navy, jet powered, flying boats. I, probably like most others watching this, wasn't aware of the Convair atomic powered flying boat. Thanks for sharing! Let me guess, you found those factory models for five bucks each at a local garage sale!

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Thanks for the comment, and all the factory models featured in my videos are from private collections. (The P6M-2 Seamaster model was appraised with three zeroes after that garage sale price.)

[@WAL_DC-6B]

@@celebratingaviationwithmik9782 I'm not surprised about the "three zeros."

[@a3skywarrior929]

Just found your channel. My father was a crewman on P-5Ms. Later, he went on to P-2Vs and P-3s. He saw those boats but don't remember what he thought of them. Great collection! 👍

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Many thanks!

[@alanrogers7090]

I was waiting to hear you say it, but the Martin Seamaster prototype had its engines mounted straight front-to-back, as you would expect in a jet design. However, this led to massive heat buildup on the fuselage that required stronger metal to resist this heat, thus making it heavier. An engineer at Martin solved this problem on the second version, by angling the engines a little bit outboard so that the heat would dissipate in the air, away from the body. On your models, both versions of engine placement are shown. Maybe you were not aware of this problem. It always amazes me when a military makes a requirement for an aircraft, or ship, or what have you, and then, either rejects the item, or changes their requirements so that the original design is either obsolete or must have expensive changes made to it. The Curtiss Seamew Navy observation plane comes to mind. The Navy requested submissions for a replacement to the Grumman aircraft they were using, (a biplane), with the requirements of replaceable landing gear OR floats, folding wings, and it had to use an experimental inline "Ranger" engine as it was offering excellent fuel economy, so a plane of a given weight could fly father. The aircraft submitted also had a specific weight limit, as it was to be catapult-capable. Both Curtiss and Vought submitted aircraft that might have been twins, (due to the Navy's requirements, same engine, same role, etc.), but the Vought was three hundred pounds over the limit and was rejected. Curtiss never did get the engine working 100% and eventually, the aircraft was cancelled, even after Having NACA test it in their wind tunnel and changed it per their recommendations. The Brewster Buffalo was another example of Navy requirements gone wrong. Brewster was given a requirement for a single engine, single seat fighter of an certain weight and a given engine. So they designed the Buffalo. Originally, it was everything the Navy requested. But, the Navy kept adding things, without Changing the now underpowered engine, which was hauling around more weight. Well, Brewster thought that NACA should test their plane in the wind tunnel to see if any improvements could be made. Indeed they could, by changing a few things, they got an extra fifteen mph out of that same overworked engine, although they did recommend a larger engine be fitted. The Navy wouldn't budge on this, so eventually rejected the Buffalo's as too heavy and too slow. These same planes, stripped of their Navy radios, extra armor, and some instruments were sent to help Finland fight the Russians in the "Winter War". The were highly praised and were called, "The Pearl", by the pilots who shot down many Russian planes. "But", you ask, "wasn't that a plane the Navy rejected as unsatisfactory?" Yep, same planes with a new paint job. Some other countries that had problems with the Buffalo, were Britain, France, Belgium and The Netherlands. To one degree or another, each of these were heavier than requested and all were underpowered. Again, this is because the Navy wouldn't allow an engine upgrade. ONLY Finland had good luck with the Buffalo as by the time they got it, it was within one pound of the Navy's original specifications. By the way, every other fighter to come after that, had itself wind tunnel tested before being submitted to the Navy, plus, in the instance of the Grumman Wildcat, had folding wings and a larger engine. The Buffalo was not allowed to have folding wings, so suffered from a too narrow wingspan.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Great comment, thanks, and yes, the Seamaster's engine placement was mentioned in one of the edits, but somehow didn't make it into the final cut. Thanks for weatching!

[@johnosbourn4312]

The float plane that you mentioned that the Navy wanted to replace with the Seamew, wasn't built by Grumman, intsead, it was the Curtis SOC Seagull biplane floatplane. Grumman only built amphibious aircraft, such as the JF, and J2F Duck biplanes, as well as the larger HU-16 Albatross.

[@sunguar]

Great video on flying boats. What was surprising to learn was the wooden models of the planes had removable parts that let you see the interior. Thought they were always one solid piece. Thanks, again.

[@paulkile9998]

Another great video, Mike. Seeing the R3Y reminds me of going to an air museum in the 1960s with my Dad and one of his Navy flying buddies. Unlike Dad who joined United after the war, his buddy stayed in the Navy and got into flight test at Patuxent River NAS. At the museum we saw an Allison XT-40 engine. The description referred to the R3Y. I asked about it, and Dad's buddy gave a response that probably summed up the Navy crewmen's feelings about it..."Oh, that was a Godawful flying boat!"

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Neat story, thanks!

[@stratotramp6243]

like the difference between the Lancaster and Vulcan with so few years between.

[@tomfey6020]

Thank you for the video. I believe the XP5Y-1 lost in test flight was not due to an engine failure but the fracture of the elevator torque tube. The crew was able to fight the airplane in roller coaster flight for 20 minutes or so, but eventually all crew safely parachuted from the aircraft before it impacted the Pacific Ocean. There is film of this event taken by a chase T-33 in the archives of the San Diego Air and Space Musem and available somewhere buried on You Tube.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Thanks for this information.

[@sergioleone3583]

As others here have said, great presentation on a very interesting subject! That Martin jet flying boat was a beautiful plane. Too bad none survive. ' VERY interesting part on the possible nuclear powered plane.

[@glennweaver3014]

Excellent presentation Mike. The P6M-2 and R3Y-2 factory models are gorgeous, as are the Revell built ups. Both aircraft have such unique lines. Too bad the USN didn't save one example of each for the Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Thanks Glenn!

[@michaelmartinez1345]

@ Glenn Weaver, After all of the various types planes that were saved and studied in various aviation museums throughout the World ; Not saving a single example of one of these sea-borne high speed super cruisers, makes one wonder if they are trying to hide a certain type of technology that can not be exposed to public viewing... Maybe there are currently fleets of high-speed 'flying ships' that are in various strategic locations, that are operating in secrecy and equipped to re-supply various military troops and operations in a very rapid manner, with whatever is needed to overcome an opposing force... Flying ships could do what other more well-known forms of transportation, could not do.... I believe this type of equipment has the current potential to be heavily involved in clandestine operations, mainly because it can land in the middle of Ocean, with nobody around for many miles and transfer vital equipment, supplies & personnel.

[@scottwhitmire6613]

OMG!/AWSOME🛫 Mfg. Models I have never seen. Ooooh...

[@manuelcavero9978]

Very very interesting Mike!

[@gizmo709]

When I heard you mention ‘a propulsion system you wouldn’t believe’ I knew where this was headed, haha… The Nuclear Seamaster was always such a bizarre (but cool) idea to me, the Model 331-6 and 23A designs are beautiful, if sorta insane.

[@markrowland1366]

Unknown history. I had a model of one of these.

[@johnosbourn4312]

Even through I no longer build models, I've built an impressive collection of highly detailed toy planes from Maisto, from that company's Air Force, and Tailwinds collections, plus, I'm now collecting the high quality models from Postage Stamp Airplanes made by the company named Darron. You should go ahead, and check them out, Mike.

[@antoniotrani6071]

Great video.

[@viksaini]

Excellent video. It's interesting to note that these aircraft were the last American airplanes that were designed from the outset as patrol aircraft for the US Navy. The later P-3 and P-8 are derivatives of commercial aircraft; the L-188 Electra and the 737NG.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Great point, thanks!

[@fanofjets]

An interesting piece, Mike! I have always been curious about both aircraft, having seen them on the boxes of model kits. The British didn't have much luck with the Saunders Roe Princess two years later, in 1952. I did get to see the surviving fin, the only surviving remnant of the SeaMaster, at the Martin Aviation Museum. Thankfully, Atlantis Models have revived the kit of the SeaMaster.

[@maxsmodels]

The T-40 personifies the the old adage "Never fly the 'A' model of anything". 🤔🤔

[@jamescochran7279]

Great presentation Mike! And of course just like the Martin Seamaster, unfortunately No airframes of the Convair Tradewind survive either.

[@CorrieBergeron]

Very enjoyable! Lovely models. A minor quibble; I don't think the Princess flying boat was ever actually powered by a reactor; that was just a design plan, never built. Interesting that the Navy is now looking at a Tradewind-like aircraft, the Liberty Lifter, for essentially the same mission.

[@millerdp]

Mike, you’ve told a great aviation story…can’t beat jets on the water! Except, perhaps, your picture of the 5th FIS commander’s F-15A. The last Spitten Kitten to wear those colors before the 5th FIS was deactivated in 87/88 at Minot AFB, ND. My weapons crew loaded that tail number more than once and put it on air defense alert. Cold War history! Thanks for remembering!

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Small world, and 5th FIS was the very best of ADC! Thanks for watching.

[@michaelcraven8205]

Fantastic presentation of an obscure subject. The craftsmanship on those factory models are amazing! It’s always interesting to see what was achievable in the days of slide rules and large scale test models, all built without the aid of computers.

[@danielocarey9392]

I remember when Don Germeraad was flying a Tradewind as a test pilot. He found that the aircraft started to porpuss out of control over San Diego Bay. He had to bail out leaving the flying boat to plunge into the water.

[@norherman]

A great history. Great models. Where would i put them. Some how i think I would find space.

[@rodgerhecht3623]

I love your vids ...just when i think ive seen or heard everything, you come through with great history and a ton of info. Having spent some time building classified factory models for Northrop i really enjoy seeing the ones you have to show us. I assume most of the models i did were destroyed due to there being classified . A shame really as i enjoy your presentations using factory models.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Appreciate the comment, thanks!

[@Cosmo50]

"Mike, your presentation is first-rate and really exciting. I wasn't aware of any nuclear-powered flying boats. I know that America and Russia and possibly other rogue nations were using nuclear birds for their own clandestine needs. I'm curious, because nothing is known outside of the Intelligence Community about this, would/could the contrail vapor be radioactive or would the exhaust be no different than regular jets? Because the TR3-B Astra and other "Black Project" craft use reactors with their 'Electrogravitics' propulsion systems, these craft could be leaving our atmosphere with deadly contamination.

[@Knot_Sean]

Loved the video! One of ther verisons of the trade wind should have totally been turned into a combat maritime patrol aircraft, I could see it with two twin 20mm turrets and maybe a 2x12.7mm on the too. *chef kiss* I’d see this puppy hauling major anti-submarine gear, like 4 homing torpedoes to deal with subs 😂 Re-Engining them with something that produced less horsepower while not desirable could have been a stopgap answer?

[@williamscoggin1509]

That's a new one on me, nuclear powered Navy jet, who would have thunk it. 😀

[@finlayfraser9952]

Hi Mike, just superb models. the Saunders Roe Princess was considered by the US for experiments with airborne reactors, but nothing ever came of it. If you haven't already done so, go to Airline-Display-Models (I put the hyphens in to defeat the algorithm) and access the Anthony J Lawler Model Collection, absolutely stunning. As always, all the best.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Thanks for the comments, and yes, I'm quite familiar with Anthony Lawler's incredible collection. Thanks for watching!

[@alejandroganem8429]

Just discovered these videos by Mike, they're awesome. Tells me everything I need to know about why boring humans no longer try to make sea aeronautics a thing. Hahaha But a great channel and love the videos

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Appreciate the comment, thanks!

[@AJ67901]

Interesting presentation and some great manufacturer models. I've seen the "Great Planes" series that covered the jet powered SeaMaster and SeaDart. Great answers to seaplane RFPs. It's a shame indeed that none survive. I enjoyed your bit about the contra-rotating props. Strange to see that Russia still uses this on the Bear. The last bit on the nuclear powered aircraft is hard to look at today and try to imagine how it was ever a good idea. Even if all of the operational challenges were met, what happens in the event of a crash? I also wondered what happened with that reactor when the plane was parked on the ramp? Where would the heat go? How would you start one from idle to response? Lots of interesting topics and a great presentation. Thanks Mike

[@johnosbourn4312]

One SeaDart still exists today, and you can find it at the San Diego Aerospace Museum.

[@tomfey6020]

@@johnosbourn4312 , There are 2 surviving Sea Darts. The NASM has one in storage.

[@johnosbourn4312]

@@tomfey6020 Really, I thought only one Sea Dart had been preserved, I never knew that the NASM had aquired one for their collection.

[@tomfey6020]

@@johnosbourn4312, I have photographs of it somewhere. Wikipedia says four of the five airframes survive. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_F2Y_Sea_Dart

[@tomfey6020]

@@johnosbourn4312 , Wiki says four Sea Dart airframes still exist. TF

[@mjw1955]

That Tradewind might have better service except for the XT-40s gearbox going kaflooey. I once heard that they didn't have a sing operational flight where they didn't have to shut down at least one engine.

[@rowanmiller6679]

Question (unrelated to flying boats): Dornier 335 Pfeil - props on the same axis, but not in the same configuration as example you mention. Would you call that 'counter-', 'contra-' or something else entirely?

[@joeesposito5101]

Excellent video! I've built those old Revell kits and I just finished the 1/72 Seamaster kit from Mach 1. What a beautiful airplane. The old Revell Seamaster kit has been re-released by Atlantis models. Does anyone make the X-23 in kit form? Thanks again for the excellent video.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Appreciate the comment, thanks, and I believe their might be a resin kit of the YF-23.