Vought's F7U Cutlass Was Part Innovative Fighter And Part Safety Disaster

In recent times there have been attempts to rehabilitate the reputation of one of the most legendarily dangerous Cold War fighter aircraft: the F7U Cutlass. In this video I take a long look at its history, design and try and understand whether the Cutlass was a disaster, or just misunderstood.
Main sources:
"Naval Fighters No. 6" by Steve Ginter is interesting but typically eclectic in style
"Vought F7U Cutlass: A Developmental History" by Tom Gardner is a slightly heavy read, but contains fabulous detail
I also referenced the Pilots Instructions for the U-1 and U-3 models to get a sense for the control and equipment differences
This is a brilliant blog post on the Cutlass cockpit configuration and the Sparrow: tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2...
News stories on the narrow escape of the Del:
www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...
www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...

[@nou9714]

Not a Pound just putting out a TV quality 45 minute documentary every few days, incredible

[@feels-road9529]

Absolutely. And algorithm bump

[@cameronferguson7145]

Protect this man and his stellar channel at all costs!

[@johngalt2506]

Great Channel 👍

[@Chilly_Billy]

Top of the hill.

[@drtidrow]

What "Wings" on the History Channel used to be.

[@Easy-Eight]

On a happy note the Crusader was a conservative design, had the very dependable J-57, and gave the USN and French Navy excellent service for years

[@chriskortan1530]

Conservative? I think the radical variable incidence wing says otherwise. Sure it still had guns but a lot of other "new" technology on top of the wing.

[@gort8203]

Like most Vought designs the F-8 was not that conservative and introduced innovation. The variable incidence wing allowed for shorter and lighter landing gear as well as better pilot visibility on approach to landing. In keeping with other some Vought innovations it worked but was not really necessary, and was not used on subsequent designs. But it was another example of Vought not settling for the common solution.

[@kilianortmann9979]

And it was the development base for the incredibly versatile A-7 Corsair II, the first US aircraft with a modern HUD and itself the basis for the imho underrated YA-7F.

[@sski]

@@kilianortmann9979 I had a pair of those blast over me unannounced (as in, snuck up, no sound beforehand) while I was on the Batsto River in Southern, NJ back in the mid 80's. Scared the crap outta me at first, but then I gotta good look at them. They were in a sort of aggressor camo with grey undersides. They were flying perfectly in formation at what looked to be 1500 - 2000 ft arcing to the left as they followed the river bend. The site is burned into my mind.

[@justforever96]

Not sure I would call it "conservative", just not as radical as the F7U. Like what tradition were they falling back on by giving it high swept wings with variable incidence and Mach 1.8 performance? It had a tail, wings and stabilizer, and didn't try to delete the gun armament, does that make it "conservative"?

[@JGCR59]

Strapping into the last prototype left after the first one disappeared and the last one did its best to try to kill you is the essence of what it meant to be a 50s jet test pilot

[@Justanotherconsumer]

The movie First Man kinda hints at this with the test program funeral receptions they show.

[@michaelogden5958]

I never thought about the origin of the hood ornaments. How cool! Thanks!

[@thomas316]

Imagine being the fourth guy who had to test the spin characteristics knowing that the previous three had to punch out after doing the same thing. 😂

[@Justanotherconsumer]

Test pilots are like… that’s Tuesday. Bad Tuesday, but still a Tuesday.

[@DavidSiebert]

Oh Westinghouse. The engine company that really messed up US Navy Aviation in the 50s. The Pirate's issue was that the Navy tried to make a small jet fighter. It's big issue was that it was underpowered, so a bigger swept-wing F6U would have likely been a very workable aircraft.

[@Nedski42YT]

Way back when I was just a kid I found an unassembled plastic model kit of the Cutlass in an abandoned house. I was in awe of the futuristic look of the aircraft! But back then there was no easy access to any sources of information so I didn't learn about the "Gutless Cutlass" failings until the 21st century.

[@justforever96]

Yeah I still have my handful of cheap paperback aircraft books that I read cover to cover again and again as a youth. Part of me still misses that. I have amassed this huge collection of interesting books on all kinds of subjects and I realized the other day that I probably won't ever actually read them. I never just sit down and read books, and when I do they are usually novels and literature. At least I will be well provided when the Internet goes down, although in that case I probably won't have time for sitting back and reading books.

[@CapitalRoach]

Such a poor aircraft they even abandoned the model and the house it was in!

[@starliner2498]

​@@CapitalRoach Lmao

[@ray.shoesmith]

Abandoned? Or uninhabited while you were there?

[@jaytowne8016]

Worked with an Airline pilot years (decades) ago whose nickname was " Captain Cutlass" since he obsessed on how the Cutlass was such a great airplane..... Nobody believed him.

[@ray.shoesmith]

The C172RG is a fine aircraft

[@skylarmccune9242]

After this one, you simply must do the similarly cursed F3H Demon!

[@Justanotherconsumer]

The clear predecessor to the slightly more successful F-110/F4.

[@burtbacarach5034]

Just have to wonder if the pilots of those written off Cutlasses didn't have a sigh of relief.Those were some tough dudes.

[@K1W1fly]

Westinghouse should have stuck with fridges...

[@JTA1961]

That was cold

[@WMMASceneNow]

@@JTA1961 ba dum tss

[@batshitmasterplan]

@@JTA1961bruh… chill 😂

[@zachariahmorris833]

The train brakes he built his legacy on are pretty good.

[@Easy-Eight]

Aviators said Westinghouse toasters made more heat

[@BoltUpright190]

I did engineering work at LTV in the early 80's, working with older engineers who had worked on the Cutlass back in the day. I heard lots of crazy stories about the F7U. It was built like a tank, but flew like one as well.

[@dandula3378]

As someone who grew up in San Diego and stayed at the Hotel Del several times, it was cool to hear that story that I was somehow not aware of.

[@Fred_Lougee]

A friend moved to SD from Seattle about 10 years ago. She posted on Facebook having lunch with her mother at the, Del, being a military sort of person (father career Navy, did a hitch myself) I had to relate to her the tale of Jimmy Doolittle and his bride and their honeymoon. My dad wrapped his career in Coronado, but I was only with him at that point for a few week on summer vacation so, living in Imperial Beach, so I never even got up that far.

[@huskergator9479]

Excellent!! I like the cinematic Del story cutting in and out. I also appreciate how even handed and thorough you are about every subject. Very very good stuff.

[@jona.scholt4362]

Been waiting for the "Gutless" to get the "Not a Pound" treatment!

[@benjaminalmquist1805]

Agreed, ever since the start of his videos on early US Navy fighters, there's been two aircraft I've longed to hear about: the Vought F7U, and the Grumman F-11F. Here's hoping we get a breakdown on the Ironwork's Tiger next

[@jona.scholt4362]

@@benjaminalmquist1805 seeing a video on the Tiger would be awesome. There are a few I'd love to see him do videos on (though he makes interesting videos on any aircraft he talks about). I'd love to see him do a video on the F-101 Voodoo and the F-3H Demon. You can just so easily see how both of those designs informed the design of the Phantom. in fact, I think a video on the evolution from the first phantom to the Demon and Voodoo to the F-4 would make a fantastic video.

[@benjaminalmquist1805]

@@jona.scholt4362 100% agree with you on that. The early McDonnell aircraft are pretty much right up his wheelhouse.

[@saoirseewing4877]

Nothing says "the engine is a complete waste of metal" quite like the definitive nickname being "Gutless."

[@67tomcat]

Excellent narration with dry humor. My new favorite YT channel.

[@iffracem]

@ 20:50 Oh well done Sir... very very well done, improved range you say.

[@Penguinius]

Actually laughed out loud at the shade being thrown with that line.

[@matthewcuratolo3719]

Highly informative and excellently written. I love the term "madcap" I reference to Vought's design team. Sometimes it doesn't work, as with the Cutlass, but sometimes it does. Witness the Crusader and Super Crusader.

[@michaelgautreaux3168]

GR8 piece. The dud, the dead end & the disappointment (XF-5, F-6, F-7) guaranteed the F-8's success. Many thanx 👍👍

[@fluffskunk]

Astonishing that the F4U Corsair and F-8 Crusader bookend this disaster, from the same engineers.

[@ivankrylov6270]

This was a radically different design though

[@lancerevell5979]

Don't forget the oddball XF5U Fling Flapjack! Vought designers never lacked imagination. 😅

[@reinbeers5322]

Aviation back in the day was kinda like that. Making good aircraft was kinda down to pure luck.

[@dougcastleman9518]

I believe that Al Casby, on Facebook, is the world expert on this airplane. He is actually rebuilding a Cutlass. Anyone interested should look him up there. I once heard a long interview with a Cutlass pilot. He thought it would have been a good fighter with hydraulic issues fixed…it’s biggest problem according to him. I’m glad the video ended with putting the accident rate in context of the time. Every jet fighter had lots of accidents at that time.

[@stevenrobinson2381]

Yes. 3000 PSI hyd. systems were in their infancy at that time. Couple of GE J-85 (civilian CJ-610) engines that were used in the T-38 would work very well-with or without afterburner.

[@freebeerfordworkers]

I read that it gained the unenviable nickname the "Ensign Eliminator"

[@dukeford8893]

Every troublesome Naval fighter since the dawn of time has been labeled an "Ensign Eliminator".

[@kibathemechanic4967]

​​@@dukeford8893While that may be true, the only aircraft the name "Ensign Eliminator" has become synonymous with is the F7U Cutlass. "Widowmaker" may still bring to mind several aircraft, but "Ensign Eliminator" only brings one.

[@v1_rotate638]

Also, V-364C was a 3 engine variant, not a single engine variant. You can see the other 2 engines and ducting in the top down view

[@stickiedmin6508]

You're correct. Three J34s. The D design was also a three engine design - two in pods on the wings, and one in the fuselage.

[@richardnicklin654]

You’re getting really good at telling these stories.

[@MrGrenadeMcBoom]

Not only is the Del still standing but they still do a decent brunch, at least they did before the Rona, and it's still a very useful visual mark when you're coming into the channel to get into the bay. That spire is just very easy to pick out along the skyline of Coronado.

[@axeman3d]

I wish the early jets like these had the engines and electronics to match their designers vision. They came up with some very beautiful, nearly unflyable aircraft because they lacked the power and control systems.

[@Justanotherconsumer]

Power and more important reliability in the engines. Early jets were notoriously fragile.

[@bmouch1018]

Am happy to wake up to this because the Cutlass is one aircraft I've always thought looked super cool, but never really heard anything substantial about it besides that it existed

[@sangomasmith]

The Cutlass is a premium example of the project that post-war aircraft designers apparently had to kill off all the excess combat pilots produced by the war. But damn is it doesn't look cool - like a child's drawing of a jet fighter come to life.

[@stevehofer3482]

Holy cow! “. . . In 1954 alone the Navy and the Marine Corps lost 776 aircraft and 536 aircrew in accidents.” I would suspect that that is more than the Navy and Marine Corps lost in combat in the entire Korean War. Thanks for a very informative video.

[@dukeford8893]

Well, that probably less than a 10% attrition rate. We had thousands of military aircraft and pilots in those days.

[@johncashwell1024]

Reminds me a tad of the British vampires but they handled nicely...

[@Zeno149]

Sea Vixen might be close going by size and performance, I always thought the Cutlass was a pretty small aircraft but its 3 meters longer and over double the weight of a vampire

[@iankemp2627]

Man, the Navy hated this fighter so much that they were basically looking for excuses to write them off.

[@SliceofLife7777]

This has been the most comprehensive vid about the Cutlass I've seen. Thanks.

[@Auggies1956]

There is a privately owned Cutlass that is being restored to flight. And no it's not mine, mine was a 1971 Cutlass coupe that I wish I still had.

[@bobroberts6155]

In pilot trials it was found gibbons achieved very poor range while velociraptors proved very fuel efficient pilots. 20:46

[@kevinmarsden4750]

Clever 😂

[@patrickunderwood5662]

I wish someone would give the Cutlass the “Me-262 treatment” by installing modern high-power-to-weight-ratio engines in the airframe. It’s such a beauty, and as we all know, “beautiful airplanes fly well.”

[@tudorflorianstoica6076]

A pair of F404s and fly-by-wire controls would make this aircraft fly as good as it looks

[@georgeburns7251]

Beautiful? I saw one of the production versions around 54 or so. As a kid, I remember it looked fat and not graceful like the panther. It looked like crap and flew the way it looked. The fact that no modern planes look like this proves this was a dead end. Better to give it the LeMay treatment. The pictures of it landing are comical.

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

At least the _"Gutless"_ looked *_COOL._*

[@benjaminperez7328]

Did it? Get some glasses. 🤓

[@user-en9zo2ol4z]

The 'Cutlass' appears a joint USN and Vought aerospace mistake in every way. The Crusader series was if anything the very antithesis of the Cutlass, in all respects; where Vought built highly innovative and reliable aircraft in a single engine form. The complete aberration that was the Cutlass cannot be accounted for. It remains one of the most errant and confused of designs, which attempted to break rules for no reason than novelties sake. The massive front strut, and widely dispersed vertical tails appear a novelty item, rather than aerodynamic elements. The delta along with its excessively short horizontal stabilisers would have presented control difficulties at high AOA, even I can see, while also avoiding lower tail strakes, which may have given the fuselage some stability?

[@seeingeyegod]

Wow the prototype looked really cool, never saw that before

[@sergioleone3583]

Not only informative and entertaining. the entertainment includes a wit drier than the Sahara. Much appreciated documentaries, mate!

[@mpetersen6]

Saddled with the underperforming Westinghouse (1) axial flow engines and aerodynamics of questionable performance for the late 1940s. I wonder just what the difference a more powerful set of engines and fly by wire controls only really made possible in the 1970s would have made. 1) Westinghouse did have turbine engine experience prior to dipping their toes into aviation jet engine design. Unfortunately that experience was all in steam turbine or posdibly gas turbine units for power plant or possibly ship board use. The US market for steam turbines was pretty much dominated by General Electric and Westinghouse to my knowledge. And the Westinghouse was not the first acisl flow engine designed or built in the US. That goes to the Lockheed engine designed for their L-133. That engine was taken over by Marquart and never really did work out.

[@RobertEHunt-dv9sq]

Great video. Thanks for posting. Question for you. At 4.03 in the picture showing the Corsair and other aircraft, I see in the background what looks like one of the Flying Wings coming in on approach. Can it be???

[@neilturner6749]

Yeah does look like a B35. If that photo was taken at Muroc in the immediate post war period then that would cement that opinion. Unless it’s a complete optical illusion and just some kind of construction frame in the far distance!

[@user-qk6qn5sk6y]

XB-35,, YB-49? Can't see enough detail...

[@petesheppard1709]

Thanks for another deep, informative dive into a little-known early jet design! Being of a thoroughly conventional outlook, the Cutlass always looked weird to me. Pity they didn't have fly-by-wire back then, plus decent engines.

[@navalencyclopedia]

Mate, i really appreciate your focus on naval aviation, that's a topic i'm interested to dig further and your videos are exhaustive and quite useful. Especially early naval jets that are now mostly forgotten. Brillant work !

[@Andy_Novosad]

Super video. Although Cutlass was really a troubled fighter, esthetically it is one of my favourite airplanes, that ever hit the flying deck.

[@mitchelllivingstone1358]

And what a beautiful wreck they made when they did.

[@v1_rotate638]

There’s a guy at KFFZ in the US restoring a cutlass to flying status. He’s made a decent amount of progress on it

[@FallenPhoenix86]

Suppose that's one way to go

[@jona.scholt4362]

@FallenPhoenix86 Well said sir! (You got a laugh out of me!) Anyone helping this guy restore a Cutlass to flying status should be considered "Assisting a suicide".

[@prowlus]

I wonder if he has good life insurance then 😂

[@jeffreyskoritowski4114]

Where on Earth did he find the aircraft and the spares?

[@hertzair1186]

That’s at Falcon Field, Mesa, AZ.

[@cliffalcorn2423]

Nice job on naval aviation "Gutless Cutlass". Please keep up the outstanding work.

[@user-js4zx1lr2u]

Thanks for putting this one up. I dug out the old Hobbycraft F7U-3M. Pretty basic kit, this adds some details to it.

[@scottsl1979]

I’ve been looking forward to this one!!!!

[@dziban303]

thank you, KZbin algorithm, for introducing me to this channel

[@bendafyddgillard]

i like the stories of aircraft that seem to have a mind of their own. That one example, knowing that would be its last flight, prolonged the flight, would not be deterred, gave a little show and then finally set itself down safely in the water. But more than that, the general rule that if you got one in a spin the answer was to take your hands off the stick and let the aircraft sort itself out. The thing wanted to fly.

[@bernieschiff5919]

The pilot ejecting might have moved the CG aft and changed the airflow pattern over the fuselage. Would be interested to know if any wind tunnel tests were performed in that configuration. I think the plane might have become more stable in yaw after the large destabilizing canopy sail area was removed and the twin rudders became more effective. In that case, to get out of a spin, jettison the canopy.

[@WAL_DC-6B]

Lindberg Models made a 1/48 scale model of the Vought F7U-1 Cutlass in the early 1950s. For its time, it was a pretty good kit.

[@hertzair1186]

Yes, I built that one as well. The only 1/48 scale kit of the prototype version.

[@lancerevell5979]

It is still available on Amazon. Model kits of the F7U-3M missile carrying version are also available.

[@WAL_DC-6B]

@@lancerevell5979 It's a pretty easy kit to find on-line.

[@abedekok322]

Well we've had the Phantom, Banshee, Pirate, Skynight, Fury, Panther and now Cutlass, here's hoping to see the Cougar, Tiger, Demon and my personal favorite jet The Skyray.

[@Justanotherconsumer]

My favorite is the flapjack, but that’s definitely an earlier design.

[@naoakiooishi6823]

Very nice. Thanks. I tend to have been interested in each indivisual type at a time and the F7U was never came in to my view. Thanks for widening the nallow window of mine

[@idriscorvus2237]

Redesigned in the Stealth Fighters era this could be a dashing lookin fighter

[@billmasson5313]

Great no-nonsense, detailed content, as always. Fantastic job. Did anyone else notice what looks like a landing Northrop YB-35 or YB-49 or similar in the background of the photo @ 4:04? Very cool pic, especially with the foreground planes still in the wartime 2-color stars & bars!

[@JohnSmith-de2mz]

My Dad was an Air Force Fighter pilot on Exchange Duty with the navy in 1956-57. On the Bon Hom Richard. He flew the Fury and I believe was able to fly the Crusader a few times too. Was offered the opportunity to fly the Cutlass but another pilot that had already flown it talked him out of it.

[@jamesmatticks70]

The tongue in cheek humor of y’all’s presentation is greatly appreciated !

[@lllordllloyd]

You've excelled yourself on this one. Thank you.

[@AwestruckOffRoadingHertz]

Your ability to capture incredibly amounts of detail and present the information to a wide audience is truly amazing. Thank you for the ENDLESS amount of hours of research you do to bring us all this. Blessings to you sir!

[@robertcombs55]

needed computers; that werent available back then...That's why the YB-49 was a failure...

[@malcolmtaylor518]

Interesting channel, love the detail.

[@FishFlys]

of the various aircraft history channels i follow, this is my absolute favorite. just something about the comprehensive yet riveting storytelling; i feel like i'm getting a story not limited by one perspective while also being put right there in the action.

[@hertzair1186]

If the Cutlass had fly-by-wire computer aided controls and systems (as in the F-16) plus more powerful reliable engines and reliable hydraulics…it would have been successful….it was just aerodynamicly too advanced for its time.

[@steves8482]

Seems like there was a new plane coming out every week in the 50s... Always loved the look of the Cutlass, didn't know that it was such a disaster. Thanks for the vid, great as always. 🇬🇧

[@Justanotherconsumer]

The century series was a comedy of errors. The Starfighter gets a bad rap but it was sadly typical of period designs rather than exceptionally dangerous.

[@gavinhammond1778]

This is one of those aircraft I know the name of and not much else. Very much enjoyed the education, interesting, humorous and professional. Thanks for the content.

[@J.wizzle-eh6xi]

great video, i love your longer form content into these obscure/unsuccsessful types. i'll often watch your vids whilst I'm building scale model aircraft, at the moment i have the he219 UHU on the bench in 1/48.

[@HeckyReckyOfficial]

Your penchent for classic English understatement, your humor in general brought more then one smile to me. Thankyou for this excellent video

[@user-en9zo2ol4z]

Even increasing the height of the vertical stabilisers and the addition of rear fuselage strakes; the short nose precluded the advances in radar etc. An ill-conceived aircraft which lacked a purpose really.

[@nopenotme6369]

Who knew the pitch down trim set just before ejection would trim out to neutral with out the pilot and egress seat. You weren’t kidding when you said the CG on the Cutlass was very critical.

[@tetris7518]

Amazing work as usual, keep it up!

[@aaaht3810]

Nice presentation. Good photos/film of the F7U I haven't seen before.

[@rpg8780]

Perfect content for me to fall asleep watching. well researched info about obscure aircraft plus chill voiceover can’t go wrong with that.

[@TheOrdomalleus666]

I read abut that last fatal ejection-incident on wiki and it hurt even when reading about it.

[@sqengineer]

Fantastic documentary on the Cutlass! I remember the hood ornament on my grandfather's car...I had no idea it was an actual aircraft!!!

[@dennisfox8673]

As always, superb content shedding light on a now obscure but critical time in aviation development.

[@Justanotherconsumer]

These things get forgotten for a reason… not a lot of things to bring out great pride.

[@billcasso5428]

Excellent story. I loved the Cutlass as a kid and built a model of it in the 1950s The restoration center of the Museum of Flight in Seattle located at PAE was in the process of restoring a Cutlass but fittingly they gave up on the project and sold it.

[@MrSwedjen]

I assembled the Revel model when a young punk. I thought it was by far the best-looking jet out there and wondered why they weren't flying around in the early '60's. Thanks for explaining. Great video.

[@yes_head]

The poster child that disproves "If it looks right it flies right".

[@billdewahl7007]

Sure does look good on a poster though, doesn't it?

[@justforever96]

Does it look right? Anyway that saying Is nonsense. What is "right"? There are plenty of ugly planes that fly very well, and plenty of real lookers that don't.

[@spencerhardy8667]

@@billdewahl7007 That was an important part of the Cold War. Like the Avro Vulcan, if it looks scary and futuristic, it's done half the job. If it doesn't look scary enough, make it really noisy.

[@benjaminperez7328]

Huh? This plane looks like hammered dog dirt.

[@sski]

Sir, the quality of your videos are impeccable.

[@callenclarke371]

Really great episode. Enjoyed every minute.

[@cmdredstrakerofshado1159]

To this day on Wikipedia if you look up the term Ramp Strike on the upper right hand corner you see a still image of the infamous July 14th 1955 Gutless Cutlass (03:22 you have the video) ramp strike on the USS Hancock. Lieutenant Commander Jay T. Alkire was killed and up 5 sailors suffer various injury's when LCMDR Alkire's Cutlass crash into the Catwalk before it went overboard . And this Cutlass Ramp Strike was the worst US Navy peace time carrier accident post WWII until the USS Forrestal fire in July 1967.

[@JLanc1982]

I look forward to your videos every Friday! Keep up the great work! In the future could you consider doing a video on the Yak-15,it one of my favorites. 😎

[@glhx2112]

Couple J-57's & modern-ish flight computer (delivered by magic from the future)... and all the kinks worked out of the hydraulic system(s).... and a nose gear strut that would not break.... and One Billion Dollars later... yeah, that was a weird dream. 😁

[@shaider1982]

I saw an ad for a scale RC model of this in the RC modeler magazine when I was a kid. Looked cool.

[@rickestabrook4987]

Superb. Outstanding writing.

[@donparker1823]

You are really good at this.

[@jimsvideos7201]

Great job describing a terrifying aircraft.

[@majorbloodnok6659]

Thank you for an entertaining and informative video

[@Jack2Japan]

Another excellent video.

[@ErikssonTord_2]

Excellent video!

[@patrickunderwood5662]

I look forward to every one of your videos. The best aviation history on YT. Just a friendly reminder, and you are not alone in making this little fumble: phenomenon is singular, phenomena is (are? haha) plural. Again, thanks for the amazing content

[@chrisambrose8838]

This was one of my favorite aircraft as a kid ! I even built a control line version that actually flew very well due that big wing ! Thanks for posting! Very interesting and informative! 🇺🇸👍🙋‍♂️🖖🏻

[@randomvariable1836]

Excellent video

[@sixstringedthing]

I look forward to employing that "alternate form of success" euphemism at the first available opportunity, fantastic.

[@villiamo3861]

Superb. Thank you.

[@PhantomLover007]

Very informative episode on the “gutless cutlass”. I was actually hoping to hear that term used in the video, since that’s what its moniker had become throughout its period of use. The story of the blue angels pilot that flew it between the trees and actually landed aircraft was pretty amazing. I would’ve loved to seen photos after that if all the wings are ripped off, and he still managed to land the aircraft.

[@bigred94643]

keep up the good work!

[@MH-xb4kl]

Great video as always ! Is it possible to perhaps consider creating a video about the Mirage F1?

[@stanleymcafee6700]

Your narration is awesome and I think that the images that you use are relevant and interesting. I also think that the narrative is well done, you have a knack for telling a story through the facts, definitely documentary-quality! That being said (and take this with a grain of salt) I think there's something off about your audio. It's not really the audio quality or your intonation or anything like that. To say it's the volume seems reductive. But there's just something about it that makes it hard to understand at low volume, which is a bit frustrating if I'm trying to watch your videos late at night. I think it might be because your mix might be a bit bass-heavy? In my opinion bumping the volume up overall might help because the listener can always turn it down, and being slightly louder overall might obviate the issue without having to make any adjustments to the mix, but I'm no audio engineer, I just thought I'd offer some constructive criticism from the perspective of a new listener. Your videos are super cool!! :)

[@MBKindell]

Somehow a Spinal Tap reference made it Into this!