Vultee/Convair XA-41; The Right Aircraft for the Wrong War?

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Hey folks! First video on a new computer. How are people finding the sound?

[@cirian75]

its muffled, slightly dull.

[@GJJ68]

Load and clear for me

[@geoffreypiltz271]

Sounds great to me. I think you are a little too close to the microphone though.

[@Jedi.Toby.M]

Impressive, most Impressive. And here I thought your audio was just fine to begin with, but it is much cleaner, clearer, and crisp!

[@sirruf9618]

sound is a bit muffled, I can hear what you say clearly enough but overall it requires some work

[@aaronlopez492]

I guess the USAAC was a fervent believer in Heraclitus saying "the only constant in life is change". I've lost count of how many projects were changed or canceled outright. No wonder weapon platforms are so expensive. Thanks, Ed.

[@donaldgrant9067]

And now they have come full circle and got a crop duster as a ground attack aircraft.

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

A byproduct of USAF stubbornness/ignorance.

[@ericbrammer2245]

Yet, a modded but-mini Black Widow, as a Buckin' Horse, is STILL Better, across the spectrum! NORTH AMEIRCAN made Dope Planes, and, the OV-10 still RULES, but needs GUNS & Smart Missiles....

[@stevenhoman2253]

As a ground support aircraft, it would have rivalled the Douglas, in both Korea and Vietnam.

[@wlpaul4]

This would have been amazing. Also, it's a bit outside your wheelhouse, but a video on the R-4360 Wasp Major and the planes we almost got with it would be really cool. I mean there are a number of 'what if' planes that we never got to see because of the end of the war and dawn of the jet age, why not a 'what if' engine. (though I know it's not exactly a what if engine since it was used pretty extensively)

[@CaptainLumpyDog]

I agree. The Wasp Major is undoubtedly one of the coolest internal combustion engines ever created. The Boston Museum of Science has a cutaway version that you can explore and it is a BEAST.

[@imgvillasrc1608]

The Wasp Major planes were definitely a missed opportunity for cool prop planes. My favorite being the Boeing XF8B

[@gandalfgreyhame3425]

The R-4360 Wasp Major did NOT disappear. Wikipedia gives a list of production aircraft that did quite well in service after WWII using this engine. These were mostly bombers or cargo planes. The list includes the B-36, the B-50 (later variant of the B-29 with the R-4360), C-74, C-97, C-119, C-124, and Boeing Stratocruiser 377. The R-4360 was a large and heavy engine that did not compare favorably in performance with the early jet engines for smaller aircraft like fighter planes. However, larger planes needed multiple engines anyway, like the B-52 with its eight jet engines, and so for large cargo planes especially, where speed was not crucial, it made sense to use the R-4360 instead of multiple jet engines. And so it occupied this niche in the 10-15 year post war period where it was useful and more economical than using multiples of the available jet engines of the time for large aircraft where speed was not crucial (which is why the B-36 eventually got jet engines added to boost its speed).

[@wlpaul4]

@@gandalfgreyhame3425 Thank you for so thoroughly expanding on the very last part of my initial reply.

[@ronjon7942]

@@wlpaul4 :) 😏

[@peterwright4647]

Hearing you say... it would have been useful like it’s smaller cousin the Skyraider gives me a true sense of the size of this beast! Thanks for describing yet another aircraft I had never heard of!

[@HorribleHarry]

Wow another plane I’ve never heard of. Wonderful information. Thank you.

[@gort8203]

"They considered the two-seat dive bomber too cumbersome, slow, and quite frankly a bit of a one trick pony." And they were right. I'm glad they came to this conclusion soon enough to not expend a lot of resources on these aircraft.

[@leonardmiyata482]

Another 'forgotten' of WWII was the long range carrier strike fighter Boeing XF8B-1 an aircraft that I have not seen a good write up on

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Boeing archives are in process of moving at moment. But hoping I can ask them for some bits on the XF8 next year.

[@animaltvi9515]

I like the way when comparing it to the twin engine mozzie you show one with only one engine running.

[@chrisf6876]

Sound quality is good video quality as always excellent thank you for all your hard work

[@greenseaships]

Yes it was bigger than a lot of other big attack aircraft but remember- the Grumman Avenger had the same wingspan! Now think about how the USN flew the Avengers off the tiny escort carriers in the Atlantic during WW2...

[@12what34the]

Hey Ed, audio sounds great, I always love your content, very well done - quick note; I would have loved if you had kept the Convair's dimensions up while comparing the other airframes' dimensions (in both metric and imperial - Canadian here 😜). I'm drunk and washing dishes and while yes I could have scrolled back to check the dimensions, it would have been amazing to just see both dimensions in text compared. No worries if you are too focused on the other elements of your content, just an idea, you always produce and that's why I'm here...drunkenness unrelated. Love your sh*t bud, keep on keepin on 🇨🇦

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Lol drunk or not that's a good point. My bad.

[@12what34the]

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters right on Ed, seriously, love your stuff. If I ever ran into you we could probably have a decent aviation conversation. Keep up the good work.

[@RobSchofield]

Hmmmm.... a subtle change in style, content and editing - great! Really enjoyed that.

[@HamiltonStandard]

You sound great. Like with a bit of studio compression. But I didn't mind your sound before. This episode was great on two levels (a) the aircraft itself and especially (b) the well crafted comoarision of succeeding designs in similar roles. REALLY enjoyed this today, Ed. Thank you! 😃

[@cirian75]

could have been the A10 of its day with those x4 37mm.

[@roo72]

It would have been much better that A-10. A-10 is a horrible, overrated beast which has the horrible record of most blue on blue kills that any modern aircraft. Look up the LazerPig on A-10.

[@stevewhite3424]

@@roo72 Let me get this straight, blue on blue incidents were the fault of the aircraft??? Ok

[@roo72]

@@stevewhite3424 Yes. They were. It's missing a lot of avionics which makes it dangerous to its own troops.

[@stevewhite3424]

@@roo72 Again how is that the aircraft's faultl rather than the Air Force which could have updated them at any time they wished to. It's not like the aircraft could drive itself in the hanger and say :Hey upgrade me." Doctrine and tactics caused the issue. Blaming the aircraft is just silly.

[@roo72]

@@stevewhite3424 You have serious problems with logic

[@barryervin8536]

I always thought the Vultee Vengeance was a cool plane, especially the later A-35 version. It unfortunately came into service right around the time that the Army decided they didn't really want dive bombers after all. British and Australian pilots were fairly successful with them and found them sturdy and pleasant to fly, if a bit under-powered.

[@matthewconnor5483]

Even today this type of aircraft would be useful. I would have loved to have a plane like this overhead when I was in Iraq and east Africa.

[@Johnnydiamondlonglive]

Another triumph my friend, excellent!!

[@Ralphieboy]

Excellent film about an obscure aircraft I had never even heard of.

[@MrPetroff1975]

Sounds great. Always enjoy your videos

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

Great vid, Ed.

[@drlawson]

Another excellent video Ed--the sound is fine--as per usual, you sound as though you have a bit of a cold--but this time with more bass. 😁

[@CAP198462]

It was longer than the also single seat P-38L which did many of the same roles and by 15cm had a larger wingspan than the Lightning.

[@merlin51h84]

The Skyraider looks like a sports car compared to the truck like looks of this aircraft.

[@karlbark]

2:33 Wow...what a strange looking aircraft ! (Might be really capable, actually). I don't think I've seen this one before ! (Despite being well-versed in these matters). -Anyhoo, thank you for teaching me something new today 🙂 -K. from 🇮🇸

[@markam306]

Ed, great video and excellent analysis, thanks

[@Calilasseia]

Weirdly enough, even before I started watching the video, the first impression on seeing the cover image was "Wait, this looks like an alternative Skyraider" ...

[@gr5535]

WHAT A BEAST ! 🦣

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

Stole my words!

[@danpatterson8009]

Interesting- nothing wrong with the aircraft, didn't lose out in a competition, just saw its mission served to an acceptable level by existing aircraft. And when you think of all the aircraft types the USAAF was already operating...

[@davidmcintyre8145]

This is known in the UK as"the best is the enemy of the good enough" and the best will always cost far more in terms of manufacture,materials and development so any rational government will choose the"good enough"option

[@airgottenweapons5609]

Sound good and clear😊

[@billnu]

Nailed it again. Fascinating airplane and potential

[@petesheppard1709]

There was also the use of B-26K Invaders (the WWII A-26) over Vietnam

[@barryervin8536]

I think by the time they were being used in Vietnam they were being called A-26s again. Seems Thailand had a problem with us operating bombers out of their territory, but were OK with "attack" planes.

[@petesheppard1709]

@@barryervin8536 Do you mean Laos? The USAF pretty much ran Rolling Thunder from Thailand.

[@barryervin8536]

@@petesheppard1709 In May 1966 the USAF re-designated the B-26K to A-26A because Thailand didn't allow bombers to operate from Thailand.

[@kweinberg34]

Looked very similar to the Douglas Skyraider.

[@arthurschipper8906]

How did they tuck that big radial engine into that sleek cowl? Pretty impressive.

[@IvorMektin1701]

The fuselage is so fat it makes the motor look small, lol. I imagine it's stuffed with plumbing for the supercharger and intercooler.

[@ronjon7942]

@@IvorMektin1701 yeah, right? I posted a reply on the cowl myself - I assumed it was powered by an R-2600, but when Ed said it was the Wasp Major, I was thinking 'no way, this plane must be huge!' I still am having a hard time visualizing a 4360 under the cover.

[@s.marcus3669]

The use of the P-51, now F-51 for ground attack by the air force in Korea was a dunderheaded idea; they were shot down in droves because of the vulnerable liquid-cooling radiator. Had they used the P-47 (still in the reserves) or THIS aircraft, a lot of pilots would have been alive to fly another mission...

[@g3heathen209]

You made me put down my coffee and stare at the screen at the mention of "two 37mm cannon".

[@chrisdrake447]

Excellent video, Ed. A(nother) brick privy with wings. Since you’ve asked, the sound quality, through my iPad, is bassier so perhaps very slightly lacking in higher frequencies/presence, if that helps.

[@PaulieLDP]

4x 37mm M9, what a bruiser.

[@martkbanjoboy8853]

The British Army in Burma loved the Vultee Vengeance (early version) as it could deliver the ordnance with great accuracy on the Japanese positions very reliably.

[@bongodrumzz]

Hi Ed, great work as per and a new pluter? Nice one. So the XA-41, bit of an ugly bugger tbh, BUT as a ground pounder maybe it would have been excellent at that, but definitely a fighter bomber out of step with time, shame though.

[@DaveSCameron]

I worked over in a Chinese Car factory in the late 1990s with a scouse fella called Eddie Nash, fond memories

[@JeffreyNorman-kh5eg]

It might have been interesting to compare it with the Il-2.

[@scootergeorge7089]

Another mistake the Air Force made, post WWII was scraping the P-47 in favor of the P-51. Over Korea, the Jug would have ben vastly superior to the Mustang due to the fact that the air cooled R-2800 was much less vulnerable to ground fire than the liquid cooled Packard/Merlin.

[@Machia52612]

Allison too.

[@ronjon7942]

That thing could out turn a Mustang B? How could that be even possible? Also, I must be having a hard time comprehending its size, because with the way the cowling tapered to the front, I assumed it used an R2600. I'm trying to wrap my head around this airplane having a CornCob in its nose, because if that cowl is wrapped around four rows of cylinders, it must be huge! Maybe if I saw it next to a SkyRaideror a Jug, that would help. Nice work. 8:45 This is such an iconic shot of the F-100; I love this picture.

[@Machia52612]

The P-51 was also out maneuvered by a P-40. The Mustang was fast with long range at high altitudes but wasn’t as maneuverable as some other aircraft.

[@animalian01]

Most airforce's came to the same conclusion about dive bombers, even the luftwaffe,stopped using the JU-87 in that role,they realised that the dive bomber was very vulnerable if there were fighters about

[@plflaherty1]

Great vid!

[@kevatut23]

Interesting aircraft. If not an ugly duckling. I was helicopter aircrew during Vietnam. I looked at the bronco and tweeties as where I actually wanted to be after awhile. Loved those small agile birds. In and out a lot quicker than us. And as I was a fixed wing pilot before enlisting, i gained a whole new appreciation for the difference. Still, I stayed in Charlies till the end.

[@paoloviti6156]

Thanks for sharing this very interesting video the Vultee/Convair XA-41 that I know nothing about it. I agree that already there was quite a few airplanes already doing excellent ground support not to mention airplanes like the Havard, the Invader or other airplanes. Am quite sure that this airplane was very good but time was running short with the Congress as already they are seeing too many types of airplanes ro produce....

[@154Kilroy]

I don't know how we went from designing planes like this, and not choosing them because so many other good options existed, to using modified crop dusters in 2022.

[@intercommerce]

At first glance, thought it was the Douglas A-1 Skyraider!

[@89volvowithlazers]

Looks like the a10 had lineage. Note the forward cockpit and upright sitting position of the pilot and invisioned role

[@saltyroe3179]

The program that led to the A10 found that USAF didn't want the ground attack role. The Army developed the attack helicopters to deal with this role since they weren't allowed fixed wing aircraft

[@gblowe62]

Sounds great

[@imadrifter]

Also as a efiacianado of Aircraft photography/ videography and/or airshows/CAS-COIN-CASEVAC, etc., in other words, ahem, PLANEPRON, Ahem, excuse me, I seem to be, like a Fully fueled, crewed and booked RyanAir 737max, I'm coming down with something, but yes as I was trying to say, at 9:36-9:37 onward there is a Spectacular Photograph of a Fully Loaded/Fueled OV-10 Bronco starting or fully rolling down the runway for takeoff that is Just so wonderfully beautiful that I (almost) wish I was a JTAC in an FO lasing or calling in coordinates for one of those amazingly nimble and dangerous Observation/Spotter/Light Attack Aircrafts..... ok thats it 👍🏻

[@kfeltenberger]

What are your thoughts on the potential of looking back at the prototypes and production aircraft of the past, giving them a technology overhaul which might include a new powerplant, and testing them for support on the modern battlefield? I have to wonder what something like a B-25 or B-26 might do with turboprops, modern electronics, and perhaps an extendable belly gun like a 30mm chain gun or 20mm rotary gun. Yes, they'd be niche aircraft, but I can't see one having the final price tag of a F-35, or even F-16, doing COIN.

[@christoffermonikander2200]

You realize that you are basically describing an AC-130 gunship. Which has been flying COIN missions since the Vietnam War.

[@kfeltenberger]

@@christoffermonikander2200 You realize you completely missed the point of my post? A C-130 is a gunship, not a multi-role attack aircraft. The OV-10D had a similar turret as did (IIRC) a couple B-57s which allowed them to take an off bore-sight shot.

[@ronjon7942]

Are you picturing a downwardly aimed cannon that could swivel around? Like the one in the B-57G that Ed did a video on? I've often thought of modernizing a WWII aircraft like you described, although I'd prolly pick the P-61 - even if it would be terrible, I'd still pick it just because I think it is a gorgeous killing machine. A B-25 would really be something with turboprops, updated machine guns and/or rotary cannons, some other type of cannon to replace the 75mm one, modern radar and avionics, Mavericks, Hellfires or JAGMs on the wing rocket pylons, and 3,000 lbs (likely more w the turboprops) of dumb, laser-guided, or JDAM bombs in the bomb bay. I can't believe how heavily armed the Mitchell could be, with that amazing 75mm ship killing cannon, up to 18(!) 50 cals, and the bomb load - yeah, the B-25 might do alright. :). Take a peek on Wikipedia at what the Embraer Tucano can do; seems like an updated B-25 would be at least as effective, likely more. Ha, this was a fun exercise - I think I'll upgrade my P-61 next!

[@kfeltenberger]

@@ronjon7942 Exactly! Put a pair of Allison T-56 turboprops on it and you'll have a right nasty little demon in the P-61. Have you been to the Reading PA air museum? They have a P-61 that they're restoring to flyable condition.

[@FinsburyPhil]

Quite like a single seat Fairey Spearfish

[@stevetournay6103]

Mm. This thing looks like Blackburn's attempt to design a Skyraider. Kinda cool, though.

[@bigblue6917]

Somewhat ironic that the USAAC was impressed by the Stuka as concept was based on the US navies Curtiss F11C Goshawk. Interestingly both the Americans and the British used dive bombers for their navies but used fighter bombers for ground attack over land. The British Army had requested dive bombers but that request was turned down.

[@benpayne4663]

excellent.

[@scootergeorge7089]

What about the A-4 Skyhawk? Seems the USAF was remiss in not adopting the Scooter.

[@SPak-rt2gb]

It probably would have performed sluggish once it was loaded with weapons. It kinda reminds me of the plane in the movie "The Flight Of The Phoenix"

[@RemusKingOfRome]

needed a turret ... plenty of room for one .. or several.

[@MrDino1953]

But what exactly is that blister thing in the dorsal position?

[@stevedownes5439]

fairly certain it has something to do with radio, either an antennae or navigation aid

[@owen368]

Think it's rdf radio direction finding for navigation use.

[@Ob1sdarkside]

Looks a bit more streamlined than the Jug, than you see them together

[@Razalonjrt1]

It is sad to see some of these Aircraft that could of been never given life because of differnet ideas needs to some other thing getting in the way, This monster probly would of served well in later wars but even if it was in WW2 the firepower and ordiance would of been very useful over the battlefield.

[@dd-gl2qf]

looks slightly reminiscent of the Japanese Aichi B7A1 Ryusei

[@SouRwy4501Productions]

Why does the A-1d skyraider look so similar to the convair XA-41?

[@francisbusa1074]

I had no idea that this thing ever existed.

[@stephengardiner9867]

Not cute by any stretch of the imagination... damn, but I wish that there was a 1/48 kit of this great lump! A 1/48 kit of the A2D Skyshark was recently released, so one can but hope!

[@scootergeorge7089]

Could be mistaken for an SB2C.

[@eze8970]

T.Y 🙏🙏 I heard you Ok.

[@stephengardiner9867]

This could have been the early equivalent of the Skyraider. Certainly big enough! The dedicated dive bomber and torpedo bomber aircraft were becoming seen as superfluous and a single type could perform these tasks as well as anti-sub patrol. Certainly it was too damned big for anything other than land-based use but wouldn't it have been ironic for the Navy to adopt an Army/Air Force design (rather than vice-versa)? Would have needed the Midway Class Carriers to operate from!

[@briansmith8079]

Lump of an aircraft - love the sarcasm 🙄 🤣

[@808bigisland]

Perfectly suited for Americas spreading "love".

[@ReviveHF]

Basically it goes like this..... 1930s : We need a Torpedo bomber with cannons for blowing up ships 1950s : Let's Take that Torpedo Bomber and reconfigure into CAS aircraft 1960s : The enemy has radar guided flak guns and missiles, we need a jet version of the CAS with the fastest rate of fire cannons possible and add in more armour 2000s : The jet version of the CAS is too overkilled, we need the prop version back 2020s : We may face WW3 against the Bear, we better keep the jet version of the CAS forever

[@rafchris]

I think I might actually hate your channel. You do such a good job at making content I would love to be able to if I had the time and effort to do so! An idea has occured to me that might be interesting. The rapid development of aviation doctrine from the 30s to the 40s and 50s is staggering from biplanes to jets and machine guns to nuclear missiles. But some of the cul-de-sac's of thinking that the likes of your channel, rex and military aviation history cover across various nations I wS thinking would be an amazing super collab project. Looking at how the major players developed their thinking over the time period with the value of hindsight in a way thats never been done before. Looking at technology, organisation structure, strategy and tactics, idustrial complex relationships across air force, army and navy air would be fascinating.

[@jaydeveas2930]

Nice plane

[@PalHBakka]

The USAF insisted on "independent"" status which meant that it did not want to develop dedifcated grond attack aircraft. Why do you thing the Marrines stuck a dedicated grpund attack aircract. And whu do you think the USAF would like to retire the A10.

[@Ushio01]

USAF doctrine from 1955 till the Vietnam war was so incredibly specialised. They abandoned air superiority for bomber interceptors armed with AIM-4 Falcon's, high speed fighter bombers to drop tactical nukes and a handful of heavy and medium bomber types for everything else. No wonder then they had to scrounge the F-4 and A-7 from the USN both of which became mainstays while also adding dedicated SEAD and Electronic warfare aircraft to its roster. All of which proved itself over Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War. But alas lessons learned are quickly forgotten as the USAF goes all in on a handful of stealth aircraft with small payloads of guided bombs while abandoning SEAD, Electronic Warfare and close air support.

[@skaldlouiscyphre2453]

There's nothing wrong with the AIM-4, so long as it's the F-106 firing it - just ask any former -106 pilot. Also, the US isn't abandoning SEAD or CAS, they're just intending on using LO platforms with PGMs for those missions.

[@Ushio01]

@@skaldlouiscyphre2453 The F-106 never saw combat all F-106 pilots shot at were drones and every other plane that fired AIM-4's only at drones also hit their targets. Real combat over Vietnam showed otherwise. The AIM-4 was designed to be used against sub sonic bombers anyway not fighters bit saying their was nothing wrong with the AIM-4 is false.

[@skaldlouiscyphre2453]

@@Ushio01 Between your (regurgitated, not firsthand)opinions and guys who've flown the -106, I'm trusting the latter. Air Force F-4s lacked the hardware to make effective use of the AIM-4. That isn't a problem with the Falcon, that's a problem with the F-4. Go find Bruce Gordon's channel, he'll explain it in great depth. He's a former F-106 pilot and he's who debunked those myths you're repeating for me. You lack credibility compared to someone who's actually operated the systems.

[@Ushio01]

@@skaldlouiscyphre2453 At least give a specific video.

[@skaldlouiscyphre2453]

@@Ushio01 You're better off leaving a comment on one of his videos than looking for a specific video, he'll respond to it. I went in with the same belief you're expressing. Obviously I came out with a different view.

[@hertzair1186]

Always felt a bit sorry for Brewster…they could just never seem to get it right…at least not for the Americans. On the other hand the Convair XA-41 has a purposeful, imposing look to it. Would like to see a model kit available of it.

[@glennpettersson9002]

This story is as much about the industrial might of the USA's aircraft manufacturer's as it is about the aircraft.

[@andrewcarlson3486]

The same thing can be said for the Yamato

[@mikepette4422]

well you found a plane I've never heard of before. I don't believe that a fully loaded XA-41 was going to be capable of doing half of what the prototypes were able to do and 3000 HP was not going to be enough.

[@johnparrish9215]

Four 37mm cannons firing HE would be some wicked fire support, I'm not sure if an A-10 could do a better job.

[@mikearmstrong8483]

With 4 high velocity 37s it would probably have been the only plane of that era that actually had a realistic chance of hitting a tank with a gun big enough to do damage, at least from the rear. Under ideal test conditions with nonmoving targets and top pilots, it was found that there was only a 7% probability of hitting a tank sized target with a 37mm, which allowing for a 15 round drum magazine meant a single hit at most. Against a moving target, with someone other than a test pilot, facing light flack, in variable weather, an antitank mission relying on guns was almost always a wasted sortie. 20mm guns with higher rates of fire, higher velocities, and more ammo capacity were better for the role, but with almost no chance of armor penetration the best a pilot could hope for was track damage or starting a fire on the rear deck.

[@NSASpyVan]

instead of 4 37mm cannons they should have put 4 20mm hispano cannons. The USA Army Air Corps had a bad habit of wanting to put 37mm cannons in a lot of their planes and they all failed. only the p-39 and p-63 pulled it off

[@streamofconsciousness5826]

Brewster Buffalo, Highest K/D ratio of any plane ever. 33-1, the 109 21:1, the Hellcat 19:1 (internet won't tell me the Spits ratio, they shot down almost 6ooo planes though). *(The F-15 Eagle is first amongst equals, with over 100 aerial victories to no air to air losses.) A different kind of Air War. I guess there was a deluge of "Historical" Aircraft in the 1950's, but you would think the Smithsonian would want a One Off Prototype that survived testing and went on to help with engine development. Put a turboprop in that and it's very suitable into the 60's, even for export, but I guess the USA has very strict policies on that. You can't just go to Venezuela and sell them airplanes with Guns on them. So ww2 was fought with 1930's tech, all the planes that were designed during the War did not make it into the war except the P-51. Request and first drawing was made in April 1940, and it flew in October 1940. Am I wrong on that, I am thinking maybe Japan had a few designs that started in the 40's. Looking up some later birds and it seems that the Ki44 program was started in 1940.

[@greenseaships]

"An unfortunate ending to an aircraft that, had things worked out differently, might have been a real asset..." -Almost every single Ed Nash aircraft video. Just not the Brewster ones.

[@imadrifter]

Reminds me of the F-35....or yes the A-1/A10/A20

[@martkbanjoboy8853]

If you got an enemy on your tail you would just have to run around inside thus avoiding the bullets.

[@Banningburg]

That's what the Brits supposedly said about the P-47!

[@martkbanjoboy8853]

@@Banningburg 😁

[@cirian75]

x4 37mm = more dakaka!

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

That is like 4x1940 Panzer IIIs at 350+ mph!

[@mpetersen6]

Once the USAAC had the P-47 in service they had a better attack aircraft than the ones in development IMO.

[@skaldlouiscyphre2453]

By-and-large. Especially if dedicated ground attack P-47 variants were pursued, not that they were needed.

[@USAACbrat]

Sounds good 5x5 The Navy kept the right one.

[@sealove79able]

4x 37mm guns? That is amazing. 2 more than the stuka. But why not 4x20mm instead of .50cal? Had it been envisaged to be carrier based aircraft like the Skyraider, it might have not been scrapped as the project. An amazing aircraft really indeed. Were there any medium bombers armed with 4x37mm guns during in the USAAF during the WW2? Sure enough the USA did not need COIN aircraft for the WW2. But too bad there was not at least one test squadron. Make some videos about transport aircraft of the WW2 please. I have never heard of this plane. It was kind of strange it did not have any rear facing MGs. What was projected range of this plane? Sure enough there were many types of the twin engined aircraft with good enough range and good enough fire power for the ground support role.

[@imgvillasrc1608]

Now that the Mauler and the XA-41 have been introduced, I can't wait for the XF8B to be presented! If only aircraft technology slowed down a bit so that Wasp Major and turboprop aircraft be more relevant in the military sphere.

[@Itsjustme-Justme]

Someone coincidentially left out the massive Avanger in the size comparison :D Length 40' 1/8'' (12.195 m) Wingspan 54' 2'' (16.51 m) Weight ~ 7 tons The A-41 was not needed in WW2 because everything in the USAAF, USN and USMC that had less than 4 engines already was doing the job and having that variety of aircraft in service certainly was expensive enough. And it was not needed in Korea and Vietnam because the Skyraider already was doing the job on a lower pricetag while being complimented by fast jets for punching heavily defended targets.

[@geoffreypiltz271]

Air Forces are never seriously interested in ground support and at the same time they lobby hard to prevent the Army from acquiring anything bigger or more powerful than a helicopter or spotter aircraft. This is a Universal Rule.

[@cirian75]

Mic is a little potato today ?

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Hmmm...I've had to change my computer, so the settings still need playing around with.

[@comentedonakeyboard]

To be fair the Ju-87 proved to be a bit of a one trick pony.

[@Banningburg]

Although the Ju-87G, armed with two 30mm cannon, had a brief second life as a tank buster on the Eastern front.

[@bryanparkhurst17]

Sounds great. Only problem I have with this is that you keep referring to the Army Air Force. It was called the USAAC until just before or just after WWII ended. It was part of the Army which meant that it was the Army Air Corp, hence AAC. The US Army Air Force never existed, that is a combination of two different branches of service.

[@stevedownes5439]

Your only problem is easily solved. The Air Service served in WW1 as part of the Army in the American Expeditionary Force. In 1926 it was renamed the US Army Air Corps. In 1941 it was renamed the US Army Air Force. In 1947 the US Air Force was finally established as a separate branch of service, separate from the US Army.

[@gort8203]

The USAAF certainly did exist. The U.S. Army Air Corps was the Army's aviation service from 1926 to 20 June 1941. The Air Corps became a subordinate element of the newly created U.S. Army Air Forces on 20 June 1941, and was abolished as an administrative organization on 9 March 1942. USAAF then remained in place until the U.S. Air Force was created as a separate service in Sept 1947.

[@charlesrice7701]

United States Army Air Corps 1926-to June 1941 then it became the Army Air Force 20 Jun 1941 then it became its own service on September 26 1947. Still a great video