Worthy of an Oscar; The Curtiss Wright CW-21 Demon

Designed and built to a perceived need for a rapid climbing interceptor, the CW-21 Demon never really made a mark.
(There are limited photos available of this aircraft so I had to mix-and-match from different areas)
Article with links and citations: militarymatters.online/worthy-...
Please consider supporting me at Patreon: / ednash
Want another way to help support this channel? Maybe consider buying my book on my time fighting ISIS:
amzn.to/3preYyO
Interested in military affairs/history?
militarymatters.online/

[@Paladin1873]

Kudos for mentioning the long forgotten hero of China, Bob Short, and for covering the Demon. You may not be aware of this, but the Demon sired an offspring, the Curtiss-Wright CW-22 Falcon trainer. My Dad's best friend owned and operated one in north Florida when I was kid. At the tender age of six he took me up in it. I sat in my Dad's lap while Bill put the plane through its paces. What I remember most was how loud it was and how steeply it could climb. Sadly, Bill was killed in it a few years later when the engine stalled during takeoff due to insects (mud daubers) clogging his fuel line.

[@Defiant1940]

The CW-21 was never officially named the Demon by Curtiss-Wright. It turns out that the import documents listed it as demonstrator, in order to show it was to generate sales. This got abbreviated to Demon, and somehow it became thought that was it's official name.

[@andrewrobinson5837]

Yes true! Thanks for that. At least it was a 'macho' name!

[@Mythteller]

This aircraft denied its true baptism of fire due bad decisions and bad weather plus fuel decision.

[@scootergeorge9576]

@@Mythteller - It simply was not robust enough to survive very long in combat.

[@johnassal5838]

@@scootergeorge9576 You could say the same about the A6m Zero. Not necessarily saying you're _wrong_ though. Ok, the frame on the Zero was a lot sturdier (until you add a number of holes.)

[@scootergeorge9576]

@@johnassal5838 - CW continued producing the P-40 will into 1944 because it was robust. Obsolete by then, but robust. And given CW's track record, post P-40, I would not trust anything they built. The SP2C was lousy. And when ordered to produce the P-47 under license, they were deemed unsuited for combat. Early R-3350 engines likes to overheat, drop valves, and catch on fire. Did I mention they used a lot of magnesium?

[@bret9741]

I’ve studied and been involved with aviation most of my 54 years. This aircraft slipped through the cracks… nice to learn a bit about it.

[@mato5758]

I had never heard of this plane, until (surprisingly) I discovered it in the old computer game IL2 Sturmovik a couple years ago. There's a few obscure planes in the game, including this one, and I like it.

[@DeltaPi314]

Great game.

[@lonestarreview]

Rare that I come across an American aircraft of the WW2 period I had utterly never heard of. Well done! Very cool. Keep up the good work!

[@pierredecine1936]

I had a friend 20 yrs ago _ Yvonne Andrau, whose Mother wrote a Book: "Bowing to the Emperor" about the years she and her 3 daughters spent in a Japanese Internment Camp, following their capture in Java. Yvonne was 12 the final year. Her Father was a Dutch Pilot. He may have flown a CW-21 ...

[@trumps1973]

Nice vids, great to hear about the lesser known aircraft. The CAC Boomerang might be another worthy of a video one day. Cheers!

[@billyhyde1415]

Much agreed. I love the Boomerang.

[@alking4153]

There's one I watch where they demonstrate how loud it was, plane was made from parts of other plane's great idea use what we got..

[@brotherjim3051]

I'm a fan of the Wirraway.

[@mattjacomos2795]

The only other time I've heard of this aircraft is from Pappy Boyington's autobiography where he mentions them as "Curtis Interceptors"as distinct from the P40's that he was flying in China (with the Flying Tigers) at the time. I always wondered what this aircraft was.

[@MikeWToast]

Whenever I tried flying this plane in War Thunder from the cockpit view I couldn't see shite due to the crossbeam across the center of the canopy. That paired with how the engine cowling bulges out made me wonder how pilots could fight or comfortably land the thing.

[@prylosecorsomething3194]

The one issue with games is that you can't move your head around to look around things like you can in real life, which often helps in situations like this

[@Alexandros11]

@@prylosecorsomething3194 VR fixes this issue

[@geordiedog1749]

Another aircraft I knew bugger all about. Cheers mate.

[@scottjackson5173]

Very interesting! I thought I was familiar with most allied aircraft which participated in WW-II. The Demon is a pleasant and unexpected surprise. One wonders what a much more efficient, and more powerful engine. Could have contributed to the success of the design. The extremely lightweight construction is a problem. Just the same. These planes operated by more experienced pilots. Could have been a nasty surprise, to Japanese Zero pilots.

[@PeteCourtier]

Great video 👍 Another forgotten piece of aviation brought to life. Cheers🍺

[@tomw377]

Just for the record, the Dutch never called this a CW-21 Demon. Their official designation for it was the Curtis Interceptor.

[@kenbower6611]

You make ex excellent videos. I'm so glad I found your channel.

[@scottuehlinger7887]

I recall reading about the CW-21 in the book the "Ragged, Rugged Warriors" by Martin Caidin, when I was about 14 years old. I was always interested in it, as there were few signs of its existence except those book references. Thanks for this Great Video!

[@FlashPan73]

Thank you for these videos. Alwasy thought myself a bit of a WW2 buff but never thought about the aircraft that never made it far from the drawing board. Very entertaining and educational. Cheers

[@garyhooper1820]

Indeed, further development may have made it a serious contender .

[@oim7392]

Nope, to light for heavier engine, weapon, protection.

[@danhubert-hx4ss]

It was a serious contender used wrong. It should fight in vertical climbing better than the Zero. But didn`t.

[@samsignorelli]

6:10...I swear, it looks like an F4U canopy came back in time and put itself on the Curtiss...

[@dukecraig2402]

What's funny is when you see a failed aircraft design that has a feature that successful designs adopt on later variants. The original canopy of the F4U doesn't look anything like the later version that everyone's familiar with, it's almost like someone at Chance Vought said "Hey, remember the canopy on that failed Curtiss Wright design? Maybe it's the answer to our visibility problem."

[@samsignorelli]

@@dukecraig2402 Indeed...i was very surprised to NOT see the typical birdcage glazing like on other period US planes like the P-40 or the Wildcat. I suppose Curtiss liked the Malcom Hood from the Spitfire (which flew 2 years before the Demon) and adapted it.

[@dukecraig2402]

@@samsignorelli These canopies pre date the bubble type canopy of the Spitfire by several years. The early Spitfires had canopies made by the Malcom company but they weren't of the bubble type design like this, some people get confused and think that the early Spitfires did simply because Malcom made the plexiglas sections for the Spitfire's canopy but they were more like the birdcage type design of the early F4U, the bulged bubble type of canopy like this one wasn't fielded on the Spitfire until 1941.

[@samsignorelli]

@@dukecraig2402 Thanks...I wasn't sure.

[@dukecraig2402]

@@samsignorelli The first one's that were an improvement on the Spitfires were a canopy that was flat on both sides and curved at the top but straight across the top from front to rear, from what I've read that was quickly adopted to the Spitfire from it's original design and existing models were also quickly fitted with them, the shame is probably none of the original design survived, they were probably scrapped. Apparently anyone taller than Eric Brown had a hard time turning their heads around to look to the sides or behind them with the original design. Also I've read that some of the first Spitfire's to be fitted with improved canopies were the PR variant's so the pilot could better look off to the side's to see what he was photographing, but whether that was the bubble type or the earlier 1st type of improved design I don't know because what I read doesn't show any pictures, it simply says that they were some of the first fitted with a canopy for improved visibility. All of these WW2 plane's had so many variant's and sub variant's that it'll give you a headache trying to keep track of thing's, throw in the fact that often existing models were retrofitted in the field and things really start getting confusing.

[@TalkingGIJoe]

An excellent video of a little known aircraft... thanks for sharing!

[@johnking6252]

Another great find from a great era in aircraft development that I didn't know about. Thx. and keep it up ✌️👍

[@garyjust.johnson1436]

Thank you for another awesome video!

[@petesheppard1709]

Thank you for this video! I've seen brief, almost teasing mentions of this aircraft for many years, so your information is most welcome. As you said, 'What if...' It would probably have been quickly outclassed, but it seemed to have the potential to blunt the Japanese juggernaut.

[@Alitheia777]

I play Il2 1946 and this plane is flyable when patched up to 4.13. It's fun to relive flying against the Japanese in the East Indies. I even bagged a couple of Zeros. Lol. I love learning about little known fighters like this. Keep these videos coming!

[@RMJTOOLS]

Kermit Weeks has a CW-19. There is a video of it. Very pretty airplane and looks like a lot of fun to fly.

[@P61guy61]

Thank you for posting

[@stevecastro1325]

Wow, I had never heard of this plane! Thanks for the illumination.

[@sKraat528]

Supposedly better than the P-36, and similar.

[@cvjanzen550]

Another fantastic video. Cheers 🍻

[@barkingmonkee]

Excellent video about a plane I always thought was interesting. I am skeptical that it could have been successfully further developed though. Adding the protection and heavier armament that other early war fighters all had to receive to keep pace with combat realities seems like it would have overtaxed such a delicate airframe. Its surprising to hear you cite Burma as the stage for the P36's heyday when the Battle of France was surely the type's greatest hour of glory (in it's Hawk75 incarnation) - outcompeting even the D520.

[@infoscholar5221]

I recommend this channel to anyone who follows Mark Felton. The same great quality as Mark & an insider's viewpoint that leaves you feeling you've been lectured buy an expert.

[@jrob5891]

top vid mate just bought your book

[@jukkatakamaa7274]

Brilliant concept !😀

[@gerokron3412]

Never heard of that plane. Thx for digging that one out!

[@leno4920]

Nice one Ed.👍

[@tomwomack9178]

Pretty much all of the Japanese aircraft the Dutch Curtis Interceptors (as the Demon was called in Dutch service) encountered over Eastern Java were IJN Zeros. As pointed out in the video, many of the Japanese Navy pilots had a vast amount of combat experience from service over China. Not to mention, their level of training far exceeded virtually every other air force in the world. So, even those Japanese pilots who hadn't yet seen combat were far more capable than the average Allied pilots they faced. In contrast, most of the Dutch pilots were fresh out of flight school (as were most of the US and British pilots) and many had very little training in aerial gunnery. Compared to the Japanese Army and Navy, their training could be considered somewhat marginal. IIRC, the Dutch had a total of 3 pilots in the East Indies that had seen combat with the RAF in Europe before coming out to the Pacific. So, while the Curtis Interceptor could have theoretically competed with the Zero, in reality, it stood very chance when the pilots were compared. In addition, many of the Curtis fighters had cracks in the wings and were non-operational on December 8, 1941. Others experienced persistent engine problems due to the Dutch equipping them with rebuilt motors from KNILM (their civilian passenger airline) vs. buying new engines. It was not uncommon for a Dutch Curtis Interceptors to abort due to engine problems after scrambling to intercept Japanese air raids over Eastern Java.

[@McRocket]

Well, that's another aircraft you talked about I have never heard of before. Well done. Thanks. Peace.

[@allandavis8201]

That aft fuselage taper looks as though it didn’t have the strength to fly without the tail just snapping off in anything more than straight and level flight. Thanks for sharing this very interesting and informative history of an aircraft I had never heard off before, thanks again. 😀👍🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

[@kpadmirer]

I remember reading about this plane from one of William Green's books from the early 60s.

[@tkmad7470]

Really good looking aircraft!

[@russkinter3000]

Thank you for examining lesser known early aircraft of WWII.

[@markmullins7990]

Thanks for video vey interesting not heard of the plane before

[@robertgutheridge9672]

Good video i had never heard of this plane.

[@jayminor9757]

As a life long aviation enthusiast and professional, it is surprising to me that I have never seen this machine before. That said, it is one of the prettiest little aircraft that I have ever seen.

[@tmseh]

It is a good looking aircraft. Not very robust towards the tail but it was designed as an interceptor. Being a gearhead I would compare its design to something Colin Chapman from Lotus would build. Performance through lightness.

[@dukecraig2402]

@@tmseh Yea but that's a bad design for a fighter, there's an interview in KZbin with one of Japan's top aces who survived the war who says that the Zero was their worst fighter because the designers mistakenling thought that the best fighter design would be an aerobatic plane with guns on it, but things don't work out well for a plane like that once another plane starts shooting it full of holes and it comes apart. Maneuverability isn't anymore important than survivability in a fighters design, there's lots of Japanese pilots who could testify to that if they were still alive.

[@byelochka]

Same here. Never seen this one, she’s a beaut.

[@PORRRIDGE_GUN]

@@tmseh To my eye, it's ugly. It's ugly in a way that a beautiful woman that overdoes the plastic surgery, crash-dieting, botox, fake eyebrows, nails etc and ends up looking like a disaster and very insecure. A bit like Katie Price. Or a bit like a well designed production car ruined by a spoiler and fat body kit. The engine and cowl is out of all proportion to the airframe. Fully loaded the torque on take off must have been difficult. I bet it climbed to that 4500ft diagonally!

[@PORRRIDGE_GUN]

@@dukecraig2402 A key to any successful fighter arm is that it must survive to fight. Pilots take 2 years to train. For example, the Hawker Hurricanes during the Battle of Britain could sustain damage during the day and be repaired overnight.

[@russkinter3000]

In regards to the P-36, the Wikipedia article claims it had the best kill to loss ratio of all the aircraft used by the French during 1940.

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

The P-36 probably deserves much more kudos than it gets. It basically served throughout the war, and stayed a competent aircraft.

[@VenlyssPnorr]

Christopher Shores' 'Bloody Shambles' series is well worth a read for anyone wanting to know more about the early air war in SE Asia.

[@meatballwanger]

This is the best thing I ever saw.

[@smellyhusband]

Love this thing in Warthunder sim . I fly vr it has so much visibality from cockpit anf climbs at like 30 degrees

[@Franky46Boy]

In Dutch service (in the Netherlands East Indies) the CW-21 was not called 'Demon', but 'Interceptor'.

[@unclebob6728]

thank you!

[@searchthetruth1981]

Nice craft!!!😃

[@Getoffmycloud53]

7:50 the P-36 started combat much earlier in war as the H75 and they did quite well. Some of the French Hawks would subsequently go to Finland again doing quite well. Main point being that this preceded the events in the Pacific, hence somewhat contradicting the “initially doing poorly” comment. Of course the following P-40 series proofed to be a fine fighter in capable hands.

[@doncatchpole7370]

Good stuff.

[@billdyke9745]

A new plane to me. The Zero was lightly built and under armoured, and was one of WW2's stalwarts. A bit more development time could have made all the difference. Thanks.

[@DeltaPi314]

The Zero was made for extra range. The CW did not have range in mind. Frankly I don't believe that this aircraft had any chance of being useful since it could be easily ended by a shot from a 7.62

[@stevesullivan9752]

Basically... the U.S. sat back and learned from others mistakes. For example, the German 109 was developed in the early to mid 30s, it's first flight in 1935.... whereas the absolutely splendid 190 was designed just a few years later. It's amazing how just a few years difference, especially during the 30s and 40s, could result in such greater design achievements. The US had the luxury of not being at war during these years to further their aviation designs. Like I said... learning from others mistakes. Cheers from Ireland fellas.

[@bodamian_bg]

This Demon looks surprisingly graceful in its own way. Thanx for that interesting story. *:)

[@Phoenix-xn3sf]

Never heard of this charming oddity before, I thought the Dutch only had some Brewster Buffalo's in the East Indies.

[@thewatcher5271]

Yep, I'm One Of Your Fans (& A Subscriber). As Much As I've Studied About The AVG, I've Never Heard Of This Plane. You're Definitely The "Mark Felton" Of Aviation! Thank You.

[@waynester71]

Been watching quite a few of your videos without realising I wasn’t subscribed. Corrected. ✔️

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Welcome aboard!

[@patrickwentz8413]

I always forget about these aircraft.

[@ronjon7942]

Good lookin craft. Pretty rare for Curtiss, maybe why I’ve only seen it covered in Jane’s. Seems like a genius airplane, along the vein of an F-20.

[@mattbalboa1349]

Thank you, Sir. You really provide great info in your videos. Everyone talks about the Avro Lancaster. It was a great aircraft. But the Handley Page Halifax served in front line service throughout the war as well. Would you please shed some extra light on this aircraft?

[@ronjon7942]

Yes! And the Stirling, please.

[@andrewbowles9753]

Thanks for the info never heard of this plane until I played War Thunder and info was limited.

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

My pleasure

[@scottdewey3544]

This is an interesting story, as with your other contributions.

[@colinmartin2921]

Fighter development increased rapidly from the advent of monoplanes in the early Thirties, accelerating through the war. Just compare the Hurricane (basically a Hawker Hart with the upper wing removed) to the Fury, and the Spitfire with the Mustang. No designer worked in isolation, they all learned from each other.

[@drawn2myattention641]

Early in the war, the U.S. considered using it as a home defense fighter. Its terrific rate of climb and agility would've been ideal for repelling waves of enemy bombers over the continental U.S., and its short range no problem.

[@darrellcook8253]

This would make a great RCmodel. Bet it would fly well.

[@julianneale6128]

I'll bet it would be a great RC aeroplane! The test pilot did say that it was very hard to land, so likely would have handling problems... Not so critical for a model...

[@dukecraig2402]

@@julianneale6128 Might be that it was hard to land because it was hard to see over the nose, it's got a pretty long one from where the pilot sits. If that's the case then a model airplane fashioned after one might be a dream to land. Even successful aircraft like the P47 were hard to land due to the length and size of their nose, the pilots of them used to "slide slip" them on their approach until the last second and then straighten them out.

[@Otokichi786]

That Curtiss CW-21 looks like a "light fighter" built by the French in the 1930's.

[@sakshamsharma5429]

Arsenal VG.33 ?

[@finntastique3891]

Thanks for an informative clip! This machine is an absolute beast in War Thunder lower tier air battles. It sits in the Chinese tech tree, with battle rating 2.0 at present (used to be 1.7, but it was OP as hell). Climb rate 24.5 m/second, 360 degree turn time 13.8 seconds! Those figures - for a monoplane - are in their own league altogether. Of course it has its drawbacks: it's fragile, so don't take fire, also, don't expect to outrun most planes. In capable hands, though, it is an opponent to be reckoned with.

[@jakeb6703]

Honestly they should put it up even higher, God knows the zeros were upteired for similar offenses

[@finntastique3891]

@@jakeb6703 Well put. 😀

[@jimbobjones9119]

Nice, thanks for posting, Ed! I always wondered (and still do) why it was "Curtiss-Wright" while all other aircraft of WW2 built by that company were just "Curtiss"?

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

I think it's because Wright, the engine company, was part of the overall group. When curtiss used wright engines, they used "curtiss-wright". But the P36 often used pratt and whitney engines, and the p40 used Allison's, so guess "wright" wasnt applicable.

[@roshent]

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters I think it's because all products out of the Curtiss production and main company in Buffalo are called Curtiss, everything that is build in St. Louis is called Curtiss Wright, where a Wright factory was located. Curtiss merged with Wright in july 1929. The CW21 was built in St. Louis not in Buffalo where the P36 and P40 were build, hence the wright name associated with it.

[@roshent]

should have said the CW21 is DESIGNED and build in St. Louis, prob more accurate.

[@yes_head]

Boy that tail looks... Let's just say I wouldn't want to put a lot of G stress on it! And is it just me, or do the wings bear a close resemblance to the T-6's?

[@MrOlgrumpy]

Reminders of early B17,it needs the same type of dorsal spine.

[@WarblesOnALot]

G'day, Well, the Rear Fuselage looks a bit spindly, but it was the Main Undercarraige which apparently gave trouble with rough useage - the Bumfeathers were not known for departing and crashing somewhere distant from everything else on.the Aeroplane...; so it must've been elegant but sufficiently strong to deal with all the Air & Ground Loads. The Wingplan's swept-back Leading Edge with a Straight T. E. would be reminiscent of the Texan/Wirraway/Boomerang/Harvard "Stable"...; were it not for the CW-21 having a noticably higher Aspect-Ratio (more aerodynamically efficient) Wingplan, and the CW-21 has a complete absence of a Rectanguar-Planform Centre Section housing an inwards-retracting Undercarraige & having Outer Wing Panels carrying all the Taper, attached outboard of the Undercarraige... The only particularly shared feature this thing has with the P-40 - and more so the P-36, is the Rearwards-retracting Main Undercarraige (and the Radial Engine). It's sort of like a Naughty-Girl's Warhawk - looks a bit "different", seems likely to be a bit skittish, might be quite fast actually, but probably likes a bit of a firm hand - and maybe hasn't got any Knickers on, either, if anybody cares to go exploring...(!). Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !

[@coolhand1983]

The lower weight of the overall plane would reduce that stress though

[@drbobsnightmare2521]

RAF used .303 British, 303 Browning isn't a standardized round as far as I know.

[@stevenewtube]

Great video. Perhaps the Demon will come alive in msfs2020

[@jameslanning8405]

I saw the basic lines of the FW-190 in this aircraft. Too bad it didn't get the time to upgrade and advance its design from the start of the war, as the FW-190 was developed through several variants.

[@hoodoo2001]

Would love to see a replica of this aircraft built.

[@flyingarts6765]

I saw a red one in a museum in south Florida, maybe Weeks, late 80s or there about

[@thelostcosmonaut5555]

It looks almost like a kit plane you can build in your garage. I’d pay money for that kit.

[@donaldparlettjr3295]

Read Col. Scott's book God is My Co-pilot he mentions the Demon and flew one. He seemed to really like the plane and it's flight characteristics.

[@timothyirwin8974]

Its armament practically identical to that of the KI-43 as well, at least the early ones. Both under-armed.

[@Caseytify]

The cockpit of the Demon reminds me of the Corsair.

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

Yeah. The Japanese rapidly overwhelmed their opponents at the beginning of the war. The first US carrier - the Langley - got sunk trying to ferry a P-40's and their pilots to Javea and another whole lot that were delivered in crates were lost as well. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Langley_(CV-1) The Allies realized to late the danger they were in and tried to do something about it - but they were to late. Of course the fact that we were fighting at Japan's back yard so to speak was a factor in that as well. Japan had the whole of their combat strength there while the west had it else where. .

[@jamesricker3997]

It would have been a useful aircraft in the first years of the war It would later have been overshadowed by the P-47 and the Corsair

[@edwardpate6128]

I have always been fascinated by this aircraft and what if might have accomplished.

[@jameslawrie3807]

The Demons would have been handy at Pearl Harbor with that insane rate of climb

[@grndiesel]

Never heard of this aircraft. Thanks for sharing! 4500fpm is nothing to sneeze at, especially for the late 1930s!

[@RaduB.]

With its light weight it was not only a fast climber but apparently also an agile aeroplane.

[@rotorheadv8]

It looks like a single 20mm round would cut the tail off.

[@jamesricker3997]

That would probably have been rectified in the C model

[@dapperfield595]

well then don't get hit by a 20mm round

[@sKraat528]

Lol getting hit by a 20mm almost anywhere on any plane is a bad day.

[@dankingjr.2088]

If those climb rate numbers are accurate, that is insane performance. Better than the Me-262 and right up there with the de Havilland Vampire.

[@edwardpate6128]

And the Grumman Bearcat.

[@DavidSiebert]

My question is suppose it had been built with a more powerful variant of the Cyclone? Maybe one that made 1000 HP or more. It may have been a very fast and nimble fighter.

[@thethirdman225]

Such a lightweight aircraft would probably struggle with the extra power.

[@edwardlobb931]

Placing armament and ammo weight with the engine turned this worthy design into a projectile.

[@piercer2]

I like it

[@danzervos7606]

I read somewhere that Japan had one they had captured.

[@hoodoo2001]

Along with the P-40's (E model), Brewster Buffaloes B-339D's, and even three B-17's (one D and 2 E's) all captured in 1942. There is a photo of at least the tail of the captured CW-21 with captured A/c Japanese markings.

[@muskepticsometimes9133]

rate of climb 4500 ft/min . . . . that is crazy high esp for 1940

[@cz1589]

Interesting. Most might know, but the dutch used the orange triangle as designation on their planes during ww2, with the black lines if im correct. I knew the Buffalo was used, but not this plane in Dutch East Indies.

[@fooman2108]

I know that it has been coverd by other people (and channels) but I like how you do your shows. I do have a suggestion that would be the Brewster Buffalo, was it really as awful as most people say?

[@carlosdelatorrecazorla54]

The thin tail gave her a flying insect like form in my subjective point of view.

[@jonathanstein1783]

Col Robert Scott of the AVG flew a Demon over Mt Everest.

[@Dv087]

The cockpit glass arrangement looks exactly like the non-bidcage F4U Corsair.

[@nathanielpea5819]

It's quite comforting listening to a southerner (yeah, south east, I know!) try to enunciate properly.

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Do wot guvnor!?

[@randompheidoleminor3011]

The aircraft was so lightly built that even _Imperial Japanese pilots_ called it a paper plane. That alone says quite a bit lmao.

[@hoodoo2001]

The Demons and B-339D and E's were underpowered, US export restrictions at the time not permitting the most powerful and latest engines from being exported.

[@Barabel22]

What about the Finns, who’s models were more powerful then the U.S. and U.K. versions? They had much better luck with theirs.

[@nickes6168]

I really enjoy your presentation in these videos, reminds me of the vibe I used to get from Mark Felton before his head got too far up his own keister. Also stoked you don't have a cheesy 15 year old mac sample of an orchestra at the beginning of every one of your videos.