Hearted Youtube comments on Ed Nash's Military Matters (@EdNashsMilitaryMatters) channel.
-
992
-
904
-
811
-
785
-
650
-
643
-
636
-
467
-
432
-
428
-
403
-
364
-
341
-
339
-
321
-
280
-
270
-
266
-
254
-
253
-
248
-
241
-
The Comanche was a really good design, had excellent speed and maneuverability, decent range, good weaponry, and could do everything the Kiowa could do, but better. When the Army cancelled the program (a mistake, in my opinion), Bell/Sikorsky were left with a fully developed design for a new scout/attack helicopter. They just had to wait for the right time to market it again. And as for development lag, the development was all done decades ago, so just slap some stub wings on it, fill it with modern avionics, and you have...again...a really good scout/attack helicopter design. The armed forces would be foolish to pass on it, particularly given they've now retired the Kiowa fleet and everything else they've got is 40+ years old. Sikorsky have their new Raider and Defiant coaxial designs up and flying now, so it makes sense for Bell to bring this back to the forefront. Hope it does well for them this time.
239
-
234
-
234
-
230
-
230
-
225
-
220
-
214
-
212
-
210
-
210
-
210
-
209
-
As a 96 year old, this brought back memories of working at SEBROs (Short Brothers) factory, in Cambridge, Seven large hangers, now defunct, and built over, repairing Stirlings. in 1943/4. These badly damaged ones, were
brought in on ," Queen Mary" vehicles, but "flyable" ones, flown in to our other base, at Bourn Airfield.
206
-
206
-
202
-
200
-
200
-
200
-
199
-
199
-
196
-
191
-
186
-
177
-
177
-
176
-
174
-
174
-
168
-
166
-
166
-
166
-
166
-
162
-
162
-
156
-
156
-
150
-
149
-
149
-
149
-
147
-
145
-
144
-
138
-
135
-
134
-
130
-
130
-
128
-
127
-
127
-
125
-
125
-
124
-
124
-
124
-
122
-
122
-
121
-
121
-
120
-
119
-
118
-
115
-
115
-
114
-
114
-
114
-
113
-
112
-
111
-
109
-
106
-
Recent developments: TEDBF is officially being worked on. Some say that a twin engined Tejas-based design, called ORCA, is being considered. It is only expected to enter service a couple of years after 2030. Till then, the Indian Navy plans to make do with the MiG-29K fighter jets, 42 of which are in service.
The plans to field three aircraft carriers has also been put on hold due to the funds being diverted to the submarine programs. There are two classes (a nuclear and a diesel-electric) of submarines under construction in India right now, and a further 4 new classes of submarines that are planned. Project-75I and Project-76 are the foreign and indigenous programs to induct diesel electric submarines. Another project for a class of Nuclear Attack Submarines is in detailed design phase. A new Ballistic Missile Nuclear Submarine program called the S-5 class submarines is in preliminary design phase with models of the submarine and its pumpjet propulsion system being tested currently, and a 190 MW reactor under development. With all this, there are also warship construction programs with more than 3 different classes under active construction and 4 more classes planned.
The Navy already gets the smallest share of the funding with the Army and Air Force taking up a massive share due to their modernization and expansion efforts. Therefore, the Chief Of Defence Staff General Bipin Rawat has deemed it prudent that the construction of the third aircraft carrier: IAC-2, be pushed back by a decade. Navy wants IAC-2 to be a CATOBAR carrier with EMALS and they only grudgingly agreed to IAC-2 not being powered by a Nuclear Reactor. With those specs, IAC-2 was bound to burn a hole in Armed Forces CAPEX. Pushing the date back enables India to indigenously develop most of the core technologies for IAC-2, maybe even including a Nuclear Reactor. Moreover, the growth of Indian economy till 2030 might allow the Indian Navy to quickly build two IAC-2 class carriers. The original (still relevant) plan was for India to field 5 Aircraft carriers with three of them actively deployed at all times and two being docked for replenishment and repairs. This would allow India to deploy three Carrier Battle Groups at the same time, with one each guarding the Bay of Bengal, Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea/Persian Gulf.
Hence, from now till 2035 at least, Indian navy will have two STOBAR carriers, each with a capacity of upto 24 fighter jets. Indian Navy is expected to make do with 42 MiG-29K till then and then replace them with 100+ TEDBF/ORCA fighter jets starting from early 2030s. 45 TEDBF will deploy on IAC-2, 24 each on INS Vikramaditya and IAC-1/INS Vikrant. The remaining TEDBF will be stationed in Campbell Bay Naval Air Station for deeper maintenance (since they will be rotated for carrier duties) and to dominate the Malacca straits and Kra canal. The landing of Naval Tejas Mk1 is meant to provide the required confidence to designers who developed the Control Law of the Tejas because they will also develop the Control Law for landing TEDBF on the future carriers of India.
106
-
104
-
104
-
103
-
103
-
102
-
100
-
100
-
98
-
98
-
97
-
97
-
96
-
95
-
95
-
95
-
94
-
94
-
93
-
92
-
91
-
90
-
90
-
90
-
90
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
86
-
86
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
84
-
83
-
83
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
80
-
80
-
79
-
78
-
77
-
77
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
74
-
74
-
73
-
72
-
72
-
71
-
71
-
70
-
70
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
68
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
65
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
59
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
I personally witness 4 ejections at close range with Martin Baker ejection seats, all from AV8-A Harriers while in the Marine Corps in the 70s. They had what we called zero a zero seats. That is you supposedly could eject safely on the ground with zero airspeed, ie while sitting or in a Hoover. One day I saw this happen, while working on a generator on top of a Harrier at the end of the line closest to the runway, at Cherry point, North Carolina while assigned to squadron VMA 513, the Flying Nightmares. While on very short final, landing, at approximately 75 feet and only about 200 feet from me the pilot ejected. It was very dramatic. The plane, luckily veered away from me and crashed in a huge ball of orange flames, I could feel the heat. The pilot got about two swings in the chute coming down and landed, completely standing up. Yep, he didn't even go to his knees, he simply walked away.
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
Ed, as air crew on the TBM-3E Avenger "Doris Mae" CAF Capital Wing, thanks so much for researching this. What if the Avenger was not the backbone of the Marine/Navy Torpedo/bomber fleet? Who knows? As our Maintenance Officer says, "She's fat and slow, but we love her so."
The TBM's line's are not beautiful, unless you love her, but she: delivered iron on target, handles like a dream, hauled the mail, flew eight hour missions, and oh yeh could land on Jeep carriers. Impressive piece of metal that she is.
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
Thank you, Ed, for covering our war. Your analysis is spot on. You are absolutely correct that Kherson offensive was needed to draw in russian reserves.
I was considering it even before the southern offensive begun. You see, the successful attack requires superior numbers,firepower and an element of surprise. Ukraine was announcing the southern offensive for months, even president was talking about it and he never talked about any military orders before. I mean when he said something along the lines of: "The military was ordered to liberate the South", I raised an eyebrow. To me that was suspicious and I thought it was either gross incompetence or part of some sort of plan to bamboozle russians in order to attack somewhere else. Turns out it was the latter.
Russians were preparing, and expecting the attack in the South. Once counteroffensive there begun, they threw their reserves in. But when it comes to North, nobody was even considering the possibility of attack there, much less announcing anything. There was literally no info about it prior to first liberated towns. Which is the correct way to do an offence.
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
Thank you Ed for this interesting update.
And though I agree that the Indonesian Navy needs upgrading.
I think this deal is bad for them.
1) I do not see the big advance in capabilities between the FREMM ships and the Sigma-based, Martadinata-class. The only one I can see is the 15-30 VLS with Aster AA missiles (which both the Italian and French versions have - so I assume the Indonesian version will also).
Other then the VLS tubes and maybe sensors - I see no other, major advantage. In anti-submarine, anti-ship, aircraft deployed (assuming they go with a one hangar version), main and secondary guns, speed and range (more or less)...the two ships are broadly similar. And with the modular nature of the Sigma-ships? I doubt that the Aster VLS tubes could not have been integrated into new Martadinata's. The Brits bought them for their Type 45's. So obviously Eurosam (the French/Italian manufacturer of the Aster) will install the weapons in ships the French/Italians did not build.
2) It is almost certain that all six ships (and the refurbishing of the two old ones) will be built entirely in Italy. Whereas the Martadinata's were going to largely be built in Indonesia. Thus, many Indonesian jobs will be lost.
3) these FREMM frigates appear to cost at least twice as much as the Martadinata's. And I do not see a military superiority to justify the massive increase in cost.
4) and finally, what the bloody heck are they doing buying two, OLD, Maestrale-class frigates? As you probably know better than I - refurbishing military equipment invariably ends up costing HUGE amounts of money. And these things ware already 40 years old. How could two, brand new Martadinata's - build largely in Indonesia? Possibly be worse than 2, refurbished 40+ year old frigates - with all the work to be done in Italy?
I smell corruption here...i.e. 'kickbacks'.
Because this deal - unless I am missing something (and I very well could be) - seems like a bad one for Indonesia over the previous deal they had for 4 more Sigma-based, Martadinata's.
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
You overlooked Motorcycles, several thousand where abandoned, mostly Triumph 3SW's and Norton 16H-WD,s and Big Fours. The loss was so large that civilian models had to be requisitioned to fill the gap until new orders could be fulfilled. Triumphs Coventry factory was destroyed by an air raid on the 14th of November, and they had to fulfil one urgent order from a disused tin church in Warwick till their Shadow factory in Meriden was completed. Alongside Triumph, Norton, Royal Enfield, BSA, Ariel, and Velocette to a lesser degree, continued to restore the numbers to well over 150.000 machines. Motorcycles played a crucial role in communications from Brigade HQ to outlying units in the days before encryption.
30
-
I was able to visit USS Texas, while on a trip to Houston, 8 years ago. It was astonishing. I really cannot imagine it being 1920 and seeing her at her glory and then being a sailor on her, to fight in BOTH, World Wars and many other battles. I'm glad they found this beast, lying in her grave, sunk, but still on our minds. The men back in the those days, had the absolute biggest balls, of any men, ever.
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
Great work Ed. It would be interesting to do a deep dive on the B-29's fire control system, something nobody has done that I can see so far. Far beyond remote control, it was a true, although crude, "fly-by-wire" control system, just not flight controls. The gunner aimed, and his sight sent voltages representing sight azimuth, elevation, and target range (by the gunner sizing the sight reticle) to a central computer via Selsyn synchros in the sight head, the computer took the information and applied half a dozen adjustments to the signals to correct for this, that and the other thing (lead, turret/gunner parallax, ballistic characteristics, altitude, temperature, true airspeed, etc), before sending its own voltage signals to Selsyns in the turret to aim the turret. The gunner pointed at and tracked the target, but the computer electrically pointed the guns somewhere else, where it calculated where they should be pointing to get hits based on the target's location provided by the gunner. Modern fly-by-wire does more or less the same thing.
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
One of the most well researched videos of Viggen I've seen to date, well done! I started off with "wait, what, forgotten?..." and the first lines narrated straighted out that questionmark right away. That got me hooked in an instant; this guy knows what he does. :)
Side note: I've been fortunate enough to grow up "with" these jets. Watching them roar from the runways and up. Also watching them go low level over the waters of BrÄviken where we had a country side house. Moreover, I've actually been "helping" to build one: I randomly got placed at a nearby SAAB facility when doing my work practice in 8'th grade. Four weeks first hand experience on building parts for some of the last Viggens ever built. I am, still today, amazed by the amount of responsibility my tutor gave me. I got to rivet parts for the fighter jet as a 16-year old.
However, the most memorable moment was as a conscript in the army, where I had one assignment putting me on the side of a road where the Viggen would demonstrate its ability to land on ordinary roads and show case it's fast turn around time for some prominent military guests. The pilot flew over us first, went around and did the landing coming to a full stop just meters from us. Still remembering the pilot hanging forward in the straps due to the aggressive breaking - saluting the military VIPs (NOT me!). After full stop the fighter taxied a but further where conscripts simulated a refuel and rearnament in <10 minutes. Then the pilot taxied back to the point where he previously had stopped, me still sitting just meters from the side of the road. Then I entered what I still consider Nirvana (or whatever you prefer in terms of religious fulfillment): Full afterburner and an aggressive take off. I shook to the bones staring right up the rear end of that fighter, feeling the heat of the jet blast. I was at the side, not in harms way but way closer than they'd allow any civilian to get. Way closer. I smile every time I think of this moment. The Viggen will always have a special spot in my avgeek heart.
I truly hope you get to see it live one day. You would love it and by the looks of the great work you do, you earn it too. Thanks for a great video! All the best, Jens, Sweden
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
While the delusions of the Spanish Civil War certainly had something to do with the state of Italy's air forces at the beginning of WW2, I highly doubt that it caused Italy to double down on biplane fighters, especially when they would see Bf.109's and I-16's running circles around them. This actually does, however, fill a gap that I always wondered about: Among Fiat, Macchi, and Reggiane, Fiat was the only Italian fighter-producer that didn't mass-produce a "2-series" fighter, the second generation of modernized fighters in WW2, to which the MC.202 belonged (Reggiane's entries were the Re.2001 and 2002). Is this the reason why?
At the point in the war it was being developed, I really don't think it was pre-war bias that made Fiat decide on a biplane - it was probably the fact that Italy was feeling greatly increased pressure on what was both an out-of-date AND small air force, comparatively. Fiat wasn't in a place to make "the best", but with CR.42 assembly lines already in place and working, they were at least in a position to try and make "the most" - with a DB-601 powered biplane as the absolute quickest means to get lots of improved aircraft flying as soon as possible, since they wouldn't have to retool much of their lines at all.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
I need to say something here. There are a lot of aviation presenters on Youtube that I simply can't stand.
I'm not going to name names, but some styles that really rub me the wrong way:
1. The people that made these planes were idiots. I know. I make videos for a living.
2. This thing was so freakish, it was probably made by aliens!
3. I'm a pilot, so this video is divided between endless minutiae, general complaints, and my own expert opinion on my own opinion.
There are quite a few channels I do like though. I'm not going to name those either, but Ed, yours is my absolute favorite.
Everybody has a 'tone' to their presentation and if I had to boil yours down to a single phrase, I would say it: 'This is quite interesting, you may not have known this.' On top of that, you are concise, consistent, and tasteful. It's just a great channel. It does what it does without any fuss.
The one complaint I have âoneâ! Only O-N-E, is that you have limited yourself to forgotten aircraft. And honestly, I'm afraid you're going to run out someday. Although there's no signs of that yet. Anyway, I hope if you ever do run out, you'll give yourself permission to do a 'Lesser Known' or even a 'Well Known' series.
Keep up the great work.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
I must admit to having a fair amount of prior knowledge about this stubby-looking but fast and nimble aircraft due to having built kits of both the D-III and D-IV. Even so, I still found your video very informative and enjoyable, and I'm happy to report that I even learned some new things about it, like its very impressive service ceiling!
I have to say, though, that my favourite Central Powers aircraft still remains the venerable Albatros D-III. First entering service in December of 1916, it got almost everything right; fast, powerfully armed and almost wildly maneuverable, it offered the best possible combination of speed, climb, agility and twin-gun armament. It was so good that many Albatros D-III's soldiered on right up to the armistice.
Thanks for all the time and effort you put into your excellent videos.đ
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Surprised the innovative features of the A-10 over the A-9 werenât mentioned. I remember this project well.
The A-10 won because it was MORE redundant than the A-9, making it better able to survive ground fire.
For example, ailerons and tail surfaces can be swapped left -to-right and from plane to plane, in the field, with simple hand tools the average 19 year old lineman had around.
The engines too can be exchanged left to right and from plane-to-plane, in the field.
A big design win was due to the early days of stealth: the fans were set high and back to take advantage of the infrared âshadowâ offered by the wing (from the front) and the taileron (from behind). Pick up an A-10 model and hold it above you. The wing hide the fan intakes and the tail hides the exhaust when seen by defensive systems AND weapons fired, from below. The evaluators LOVED this.
The engine are on pylons; if they blow up, the fuselage and the other engine stand a better change of surviving.
At the time, I couldnât believe the engines on 9 were set low to the ground, SO exposed to ground fire (even if armored). And those HUGE intakes turned made the A-9s radar return as big as the side of a barn. Both were huge minuses. They tried to sell it as you didnât need a ladder to check the engine, as you did on the 10. That didnât fly, plus it was demonstrated that you can clamber up the 10âs gear, wing and make it to the engines just fine with no ladder.
I think BOTH had single-point hi-pressure refueling formalism ground turnarounds. I like the gear tip on the 10 better.
There were other innovative features in A-10 I canât remember, those were the ones that mattered most, at the time.
CB
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I'm a former news writer, teacher and history buff. Thanks Ed, for your fine report. I had forgotten that Tony Fokker was Dutch, not German, and he was clearly one of the very best in early aviation. Finland's war history includes this long, drawn out battle with Russia. Before the US was involved, Finland bought a group of US-made Brewster Buffalo fighter planes, and did quite well against the lesser Russian air forces. Sadly, Finland as losers to Russia had to pay reparrations to Russia. Also, the civilian casualties in Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were a high percentage of the total population. Warfare has a high price-tag.
6
-
6
-
Hi Ed, great content, really like the background info as well as the subject. If you are looking for the subject of another unusual military aircraft how about the F-105H, (I am assuming it had the H label coz G was the last of the conventional line or it might have been given a new designation). Anyway, the F-105H, with an 8 foot increase in wing span, change to a turbofan motor, terrain following radar, (instead of terrain avoidance radar) and changes to the internal bomb bay, was in competition with the F-111, which it lost for reasons you are probably aware. It would have been available to the USAF for one tenth the cost an F-111. Interesting.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
To complement what was said in the video, the IAĂ©-24 Calquin did not initially foresee the RR Merlin as a motorization, probably because they knew for sure that due to the war they could not be available at that time. The plane was designed from the beginning to carry Pratt & Whitney R-1830-65A SIC3G 1200 HP radial engines and its resemblance to the Mosquito is not accidental, in fact Argentine engineers had regularly visited the de Havilland factory where it was provided to them. some technical information.
After the first flight, the specialized press and the newspapers of the moment highlighted that a second version with liquid-cooled in-line engines would begin to be designed. This version that is named in the video was the IAĂ©-28 also known extra officially as "Super Calquin", it would have two RR Merlin 604 engines and all the modifications that the new engine and the experience in the use of the IAĂ©-24 demonstrated, among they include the adoption of radiators on the wing leading edge, between the engines and the fuselage, reinforced landing gear, etc.
The project was advancing, however, in parallel, work was being done on the IAĂ©-30 "ĂamcĂș", a twin-engined "destroyer" type equipped with two RR Merlin 134-135 engines. The advanced stage of this project (which flew in July 1948) led to the cancellation of the IAĂ©-28 and efforts to focus on this new metallic twin-engine. Its resemblance to the de Havilland Hornet was not accidental, since the visits and exchanges with the English manufacturer were maintained. In fact, the original technical information of the plane describes that the hydraulic, pneumatic and electrical systems of the IAĂ©-30 belonged to the de Havilland Hornet, with the necessary modifications to adapt it to the Argentine model. A prototype of this aircraft was completed and two more in different stages of construction.
In 1949 a two-seater version was planned, and two motorized with two RR Derwent V turbojets, one for fighter and one for bombing. It had also been planned to transfer it in flight to Farnborough and for this long-duration flight practices were carried out together with two Avro Lancastrians that would support navigation during the crossing of the Atlantic Ocean, but in the end it did not materialize. In 1951 it was assigned to active service and assigned the registration I-101 (following the Gloster Meteor ending in I-100) however it was destroyed in an accident before entering service.
Another consideration about the Calquin, his bad reputation was not entirely true and the results of extensive tests carried out in 1951 demonstrate this. It should be noted that their engines were similar to those used by proven aircraft such as the DC-3/C-47, so nothing can be objected to the motorization if we take into account that for the Calquin they had to operate with a maximum weight of just over 7,000 kg, while with the DC-3 the same engines had to do so with twice the maximum weight, about 14,000 kg. Despite this, it was planned to try other engines and studies had begun for the adaptation of the P&W R-2,000 and Bristol Hercules.
I also want to add that Argentina did not have any type of difficulty or refusal by England or Rolls Royce to purchase Merlin or other engines, if they were not purchased it was because those purchases were not managed, either because the projects were canceled or were not produced in series. Another thing to keep in mind is that starting in 1948, a lot of British-sourced material was incorporated. Just to name a few whose engines are related to the topic discussed in the video, 30 Avro Lincoln BMk2 were incorporated; 15 Avro Lancaster BMkI, that meant a number of 180 RR Merlin engines in the bombers, plus some new ones for replacement, added to the test stands installed by Rolls Royce and full repair capability and inspections at all levels... too 100 Gloster Meteor FMk4 were incorporated which meant that the planes alone had 200 RR Derwent V turbojets, to which were added new engines for replacement, a large number of spare parts and the materials and licenses to manufacture them in series at the Instituto Aerotécnico (Derwent V and Nene II), where the Pulqui I, Pulqui II and other prototypes carried both the Derwent V and the Nene II, plus other projects that would see the light of day on the design tables that contemplated the use of the most modern RR Avon, such as the IA-36 Condor transport plane (design by Kurt Tank) or the IA-48 (design by Reimar Horten), and others...
Definitely England was the first interested in making all these projects prosper and in selling all kinds of materials that many nationally designed aircraft models used to have: engines, systems, ejectable seats, brakes, tires, etc.
I forgot to mention that the Calquin never carried 20mm guns. The armed versions carried two types of 12.7mm machine guns. Long-barreled Brownings and short-barreled "DL" Nationals
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Nice to see this aircraft covered! Originally it was to be the Payen-Melot Pa-22/1R Flechair powered by the Melot 1R steam-oil powered ramjet type engine. This aircraft was built and had four wheels, the main landing gear, a tailwheel, and a 4th under the engine as it was so heavy the aircraft "bounced" as Monsieurs Payen and Melot tried to get if off of the ground. It was hoped to enter it into the Coupe Deutsch de la Meurthe air race, but when the aircraft failed to perform, it was re-engined with the conventional propeller piston engine.
During this same period, another canard aircraft was built in Italy, only with a pusher propeller, the SAI Ambrossini SS.4, destroyed in a crash in 1939. Germany investigated this concept with the Henschel He.P.75 of 1941. In the United Kingdom this concept was continued with the Miles M.35 Libellula in 1942, then came the American Curtiss XP-55 Ascender of 1943, the Japanese Kyushu J7W1 Shinden in 1945, and the Russian Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-8 Utka of the same year. Many nations were curious of this concept.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Interesting, never heard of this one, good vid Ed!. Also, what I always find interesting is people still believe single inline engined WW2 fighters were faster & more aerodynamic than single radial engine radial engined aircraft. The fastest single engined fighters of WW2 were the P47M at 473mph(some pilots claimed to have reached 480-490mph, a couple claimed 500mph, all at altitude), & the P47N, at around 465mph, heavier, bigger, but faster than all inline fighter aircraft, except the FW TA152 with its huge Jumo bomber engine, at between 469-474mph. Only around 43 of these were ever delivered. The XP47J was the first & only propped aircraft to OFFICIALLY break over 500mph in level flight(The Chysler 16 cylinder inline XP47H also claimed 500+, but officially, if memory serves. And you say radials are less aerodynamic than inlines??? Greg's Airplanes & Automobiles has excellent, fair evaluations of numerous WW2 era fighters, one in particular comparing aerodynamics between the radial engined FW190s & the P51 Mustang. Oh, the radial engined Corsair was as fast as the Mustang. All speeds were derived from numerous sources, some differ a bit, I try to take all into consideration.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Elbonia needs an air force! I hope you've heard of the Elbonian armed forces. Ian of Forgotten Weapons and The Chieftain have done episodes on arming the newly independent nation of Elbonia in 1946. (Scott Adam's Elbonia of the Dilbert cartoons, the one whose chief export is mud.) I'm hoping you can do one for their air force. The premise is they're building an air force from scratch, and the catch is the Minister of Defense is a traitor and wants to saddle the country with the worst aircraft available. He also wants to create the worst logistical mishmash possible.Â
The parameters are the aircraft must have existed during WW 2 and be a superficially plausible choice to the cabinet, who are naive about military aircraft. No Swordfish string bag, I'm afraid, although there are of course better looking planes with worse combat records. If there are too many choices, feel free to limit it to planes that actually saw combat or were operational. Elbonia needs a fighter, medium bomber, heavy bomber, and troop carrier that will support paratroopers. Definitely a torpedo bomber and dive bomber. These can be land based but Elbonia is contemplating an aircraft carrier, so perhaps these could be part of a separate episode including a couple of carrier fighters.
I've recently started following your channel and become a subscriber, and realized you'd make a great mischievous Minister of Defense.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Most of us focus primarily on the content of the video, not the pronunciation of any terms or names. We all know, to what you are referring.........Curtiss was up against the wall on this one, with an unproven airframe, engine and propeller set-up. Even at the end of the war and following years, the highest-performing propeller planes (reliable ones) used progressive improvements in fuel and supercharging technology to get the huge power output needed from proven engines to push these fighters into the 500 MPH arena. Bearcat, Seafire, Sea Fury and Mustang, Thunderbolt, TA152, among others.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
IT seems to be the popular meme to blame the "Chrysler bailout' via the administration of that time and the DOD, headed by Rumsfeld. But, an examination of the time shows that it really wasn't Rumsfeld making the decision, the decision was as most things dealing with military procurement, it falls to the Congress and their somewhat and often-times confused priorities. Don't forget, this was the time during the 'gas crisis' that drove US manufacturers to produce smaller vehicles (which they didn't do so well) and the resulting fall of Chrysler. Unlike in the 2000s when financial and production problems convinced the Obama administration to basically bail-out GM, with the abandonment of its investors, Congress pressured the DOD to go with Chryslers' version of the main battle tank for the US. Its a tribute to the DOD and its efforts to have developed the tank into a world-class vehicle that has successfully fulfilled its core missions. It can be argued that the thirsty turbines reliance on massive amounts of fuel, it simply a following of the US's overarching military doctrine that has been successfully used for almost 100 years, of the ability to out-produce any potential adversary. This means that the adversary isn't just fighting against a single weapon system or unit, or event the entire military, it's fighting against the capabilities of the entire nation. It can be argued that this was one of the strategies that the Chinese (and others) have (had) sought to effectuate from the 1990s until the present day.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Another good video Ed, keep 'em coming! One point to stress (if you'll forgive the pun!). The Martin-Baker designs were NOT stressed skin, that was their whole point. Captain Valentine Baker had been a test-pilot for the Vickers Aviation company. In the mid-1920s he was given the job of overseeing the assembly, and flight-testing, of 26 Vickers monoplane parasol "Scouts" ordered by the Chilian Government. The "Scouts" were built on a construction technique licensed to Vickers by the French Wibault company that allowed the construction of internally-stressed monoplane wings. The wings were covered with metal panels, but those panels did not add to the strength of the wing, so it was not a "stressed skin" design. In the Wibault system, the metal panel coverings were riveted to each other along raised lips. This meant if any panel had to be removed all the rivets had to be drilled-out manually, a long and time-consuming business. It was the experience of doing this that led Val Baker to go into business with the engineering genius James Martin, to adapt the concept of the Wibault system so that all the panels were held in place by quick-release fasteners, making construction and maintenance much easier. Their first aircraft, the little civil MB1, showed the system worked. The MB2 fighter used the new method on the wings and front fuselage, but still had a fabric covering for the rear fuselage and tailplane. The MB3 and MB5 used metal coverings throughout. Most descriptions of the MB1,2,3 and 5 completely ignore or understate the revolutionary and unique construction method used in them. Martin-Baker also constructed the revolutionary ARIII autogyro for Raoul Hafner, worthy of another video in its own right.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Straight from the off I have to disagree with your analysis, the B-29 wasnât the âpinnacleâ of the WWII heavy bomber, the A.V Roe (AVRO) Lancaster was holds that lofty position, maybe not from a technological standpoint as it had many new and untested innovations, and as you pointed out they didnât all miraculously work from day-1, teething issues that General Le-May obviously didnât appreciate or need, especially when he first took over the USAAF In the pacific theatre of operations, teething problems that on any other new aircraft would be an inconvenience at best and problematic at worst, but for the âSuper-fortressâ they put lives at risk and for the crews, General Le-May, Boeing and the USA it was embarrassing, after all the hype and bluster about how technically advanced, designed and built, by American craftsmen, by the best aircraft manufacturer in the world it could not be allowed to fail and not enter service, even more so because if it didnât or couldnât then the atomic bombs would have to be dropped by the totally untechnical, string-bag, A.V Roe Lancaster, the only aircraft capable of delivering instant sunshine bombs to Japan, how embarrassing would that have been, America, with a huge number of other countries including Great Britain đŹđ§, could build the worldâs first real WMD but could NOT actually get it to the target, not very good for American pride, and even then it couldnât be loaded without some major digging of pits and special cradles etc, but the good old Lancaster, with modifications to the bomb bay could it could easily lift the bomb, it weighed less than either âTallboyâ or Grand Slamâ, so, for me the B-29 was the second best heavy bomber of WWII, but letâs face it, the Lancaster and B-29 were the only two real âHeaviesâ from either side of the war, and in addition the Lancaster was the father of other iterations of the design culminating in the A.V Roe Shackleton, long after the B-29 or any of its lineage were sent to the scrap heap.
Serious question, why, as a general rule, do American aircraft manufacturers believe bigger is better????, and yet they have produced some of the small aircraft to ever see service, the A-4 Skyhawk being a prime example.
Despite my opinion differing from yours regarding the B-29 i would still like to say thanks for another excellent episode, interesting, informative and well presented, please keep up the hard work, big thumbs up đđđŹđ§đŽó §ó ąó „ó źó §ó ż
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
What's with the snide against the Su-27? I think it is the most beautiful of all modern fighter jets and the way they managed to decrease the wing loading without increasing drag by making the body create lift and act as a 3rd wing is quite ingenious, kind of a "eat your cake and still have it"-thing, as anyone who knows something about aircraft design and the necessary trade-offs and compromises made between maneuverability/wing loading and speed/low drag knows and should be able to appreciate. That is quite a feat, from an engineering perspective.
Add to that the enormous internal fuel capacity making external drop tanks optional instead of mandatory and that despite being more maneuverable, it still has a decent max speed and it is a very impressive machine, at least in theory.
It might be let down by the avionics, radar and the training levels of the pilots flying it, or the commanding officers deciding how it is flown and when, but it arguably is the better aircraft, compared to the comparably simple "modern boom and zoom fighter with a big radar"-design of the F-15.
And no, I'm not a Russian troll or military fanboy. I am a interested outsider from a country that neither operates F-15, nor any variant of the Su and have no personal, nationalistic dog in that game.
Subjectively, as a "aircraft porn pervert", I like both. The F-14, not so much to be honest. It always looked too bulky to me and kind of lazy in its design. It looks like something a amateur using a 3d modeling software to design his own fighter aircraft would come up with. Just 2 engines with a cockpit and all the other stuff a fighter needs slapped on to it in kind of a slapdash "good enough to work" matter. It is nowhere near as elegant as a Su-27, which looks like a mix between a eagle, a crane and a shark.
I think without the original Top Gun movie, only a small niche minority among military aircraft fans would count it as one of their favorites.
In that regard it kind of is like the "Paris Hilton" of fighter jets. People find her sexy because the media told them so but nobody really can explain why they ride the bandwagon of finding her hot.
Yeah, Paris Hilton is a 20 year late, dated reference, but I don't know enough about modern "sex symbols" to make the comparison with a more up to date example, hehe.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Just a note regarding the relevant aerodynamics - compressibility comes from Mach number, not airspeed or groundspeed. Because Mach varies with altitude (same actual speed over the ground equals higher mach at higher altitude due to temperature changes), you get compressibility "earlier" at higher altitude. Meanwhile, the same true speed "looks like" lower airspeed to a wing at higher altitudes, because the lower density air provides less lift (and less drag) for a given airspeed. This leads to a "coffin corner" where the aircraft needs to fly faster in order to maintain lift, yet adding any speed causes mach limit issues. That "coffin corner," where those lines converge, is often the reason for an aircraft's ceiling. High aspect (long and slender) wings help with the lift part, but if materials requirements mean they have to be extra chunky, the compressibility gets worse. Just 15 or so years later, the U-2 would use extremely long, thing, and NON-chunky wings to get its coffin corner up to ~80k feet.
3
-
3
-
While I'm not a B52 fanboy, I will relate something that happened in 1991 when the USAF sent several B-52s and F-117s that took part in the air campaign out to airshows so we taxpayers could drool at them but not put our noses against the windows. ;-) The B-52 was spotted on the tarmac and unlike the F-117, didn't have a fence, armed, and sternly looking Security Specialists guarding it. Two guys and younger boy were standing there talking; the younger man in a flight suit, the older man in a flight jacket, and the boy in normal clothes. I went up to the (assumed) pilot to thank him for his service and got to talking with all three...the boy said that this was the plane his granddad flew and that his dad flew, and that when he was old enough, he was going to fly. The older man, the granddad, nodded and said that he flew most of his SAC alert missions in that very plane, and when his son (the pilot) told him the tail number of his new assignment he was surprised because it was his own.
I have no doubt that if that boy worked hard, he'd have likely been flying over in the sandbox.
Thus, when it comes to the B-52, it is the ultimate "Hold my beer" survivor.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Meh..the Meh! Perfect name for a ridiculous idea!!! Hey buy our not really good plane, heavier, slower, crappier. But really good value at only 7/8ths the price!
OMG what is the next one!!?? So cruel for the geeks who are not quite geeky enough, man!!!
You should know that the, what I shall call "ordinariness" of the delivery is a massive plus! No gimmicks, no hype, just great clear info! Thanks. Please never cave to the ones asking for "more excitement" or "more graphics" or whatever. It's brill already.
If you want to know what I mean, watch a few "Harry's Garage/Farm" videos, and compare them to the rubbish that's out there like Top Gear (and any other moronic, crap car/bike channel). Also Allen Millyard's bike channel.
Thanks again.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
All the problems you mention re carrier deck landings afflicted the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver too - in it's earliest incarnation, at least. It, too, had a frame weakness in the rear fuselage that saw tails snap off on heavy (or even not-so-heavy) landings, and it's heavy control, sluggishness and sheer size (it replaced the much-loved Douglas Dauntless) led to crews giving the aircraft the nickname "Son-of-a-Bitch, Second Class" after its SB2C initials, or else "The Beast". Unlike the Mauler, though, Curtiss was able to address the Helldiver's myriad problems, hammer them out and end up with a very good bomber. Maybe, with time and with the pressure of wartime to get things done, Martin might have been able to take the potential of the Mauler, fix its issues and turn it into something good. Yet another aviation "what-if"...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thanks especially for this one, mate. My Dad was an engineer at CAC, located at the evocatively named Fishermans Bend, Melbourne. Once the pride of our domestic aviation industry, with Government Aircraft Factory next door, the runways and vast halls of plant and machinery are demolished and long gone in the name of urban renewal. May I humbly point you in the direction of the CA-11/A23 Woomera, a design by Lawrence Wackett that almost made it into service? As a young volunteer with the Australian Aircraft Restoration Group, I used to clean the remote-control gunners turret from one of these aircraft. Convention in pronunciation of acronyms and the like is sometimes difficult to establish. My Dad always used to refer to the Heinkel bomber as a 'One-one-one'. As he spent his formative teenage years at Barnoldswick, where he would later work for Rolls Royce, telling me tales of lone 'One-one-ones' droning over the moors at night (yes, he could identify enemy aircraft type by engine note) trying to locate the Rolls Royce factory (no doubt riding their not-so-secret beams), I've always thought that this was the authentic way to refer to the aircraft but have never heard others do so. Cheers.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thank you very much for this - and other - updates (in addition to your normal 'unusual plane' videos).
So, the American Navy seizes a boat of unknown origin carrying large amounts of arms - apparently from Iran - destined, apparently, for Yemen
(a war that both Obama and Trump - supported the Saudi-backed side. Plus, the Saudi's have been trying to prove an Iranian connection to the other side for years...to strengthen their hand in the conflict.)
And this was SO important to someone higher up, that the Navy personnel were instructed to spend hours & hours to breakout the weapons from their boxes and cover the deck with them in neat rows - to look more impressive and, hopefully, more newsworthy.
Now who benefits the most from this - if it were true?
The Saudis (massively), Israel (somewhat) and the US neocons (largely)
Saudi's - they can get America to keep helping them as Biden is publicly waffling on the conflict.
Israel - because they despise Iran...period.
US - the neocons in Washington whom want a war with Iran, want to support the Saudi's in Yemen and do NOT want Biden to re-start, the Iranian nuclear deal.
And how does this hurt Iran?
Hugely - if it convinces Biden to NOT re-start the nuclear deal. As it is suffering from the boycotts.
Iranian involvement in the Yemeni Civil War has NEVER been factually proven. But the Saudi Royal family desperately want a link to be proven.
https://www.thespec.com/opinion/contributors/2019/12/06/gwynne-dyer-saudis-are-the-big-losers-as-bloody-war-in-yemen-sputters-out.html
I smell a rat.
Me thinks that someone who wants an Iranian-Houthi connection proven. So, they got hold of some arms, threw some Iranian-captured weapons in, amongst the bunch, stuck 'em on a un-registered boat and made sure the US Navy found the boat...and ta da!!!
The Saudis/Israelis and US neo cons have their Iranian/Houthi connection.
Why the 'f' would Iran send arms that could easily be identified as theirs to the Houthi's right on some boat that is sailing where the US Navy is patrolling? And why would they include in said shipment some arms that would point a big, red arrow right at Iran? That is taking an AWFUL lot of chances just to send the Houthi's some arms that they could use - but they will not lose without. I am quite sure that sending the Houthis money would help them at least as much - and be untraceable...especially if done with cryptocurrencies.
Sorry...I ain't buying it.
One thing people have to learn about international relations is that when something is found/happens? And it when you look behind the headlines? You realize that this hurts the people that are accused of doing the naughty thing FAR more than it ever could have helped them had this naughty thing gone unnoticed.
It was like when their was that 'gas attack' in Syria - supposedly by Assad on a small village.
I mean - why the 'f' would Assad risk a bunch of international condemnation AND US airstrikes to simply gas a tiny village? It made NO sense.
Yet, because the anti-Assad coalition were starting to lose (after Russia came in) - they were desperate for American help?
It made a TON of sense for the rebels to stage a fake attack on the village (or a real one and kill a few civilians') with gas shells they had confiscated from Assad warehouses at the start of the civil war. This would horrify the world - because the world are mostly idiots/naive - and get the world to help them. And it worked...sort of. Trump launched some air strikes. But nothing else.
ALWAYS look behind the headlines on EVERY story.
Thank you again for this video, Ed Nash.
Very informative.
And as I have stated in the past - VERY refreshingly presented.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I grew up in Wyoming(USA), and our mt.s were much higher. Always got me that, when you got close to a summet, there would be a spring babbling along, even in the late Fall. I still wonder where the heck the water was coming from. Not that far away would be the down side of the mountain. On one side, the water would eventually end up in the Atlantic Ocean, and on the other side, the water would end up in the Pacific Ocean. There was a pond, on the Continental Divide, where the water on one side went to the Atlantic and on the other end went to the Pacific.
As an adult, I moved to Montana, where I still live and at 81, I'm still a Rocky Mountain boy, living about 10 miles from the Continental Divide in that State. Thank you for taking us on a stroll up one of your mountains.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dear Ed, your videos are very interesting which, I must confess, I discovered very recently, in fact I recently posted a comment with some considerations about the IAĂ©-24 Calquin. I would like to say a couple of things about the HAL HF-24 Marut that I think will be cause for disbelief if not seen with perspective and common sense. Unfortunately, photos cannot be shown here that would be enlightening of what I am about to say.
The Marut was designed, in 1954, in Argentina, with the name of IA-40 Pulqui III.
I would like to explain a few things. After the first flights of the Pulqui II it had become evident that it was not going to be a supersonic fighter, so experiments began on modified RR Derwent V engines with afterburner. They also concluded that in order to achieve Mach-1, the prototype had to be extensively adapted. The idea with the afterburner tests was to emulate the tests that England was carrying out with the Derwent V-R turbojets whose technical information was prohibited because it was a new and secret technology.
Despite the fact that the tests were very satisfactory, the need for a new aircraft project was evident. In 1954 under the direction of Kurt Tank, the engineers MittelhĂŒber and Bansemir began with the conception of the IA-40 Pulqui III. With the appearance of new and more powerful axial-flow turbojets, the group of German technicians began to analyze the options. In the first place, the most viable to be repowered was the RR Avon (which was going to be acquired for the IA-36 Condor, of which Rolls Royce had already authorized the delivery of up to six engines as soon as they were finished, as well as the immediate delivery of a mock-up as physical model for the design and installation of systems and equipment). They were also presented with the Armstrong-Siddeley "Sapphire" as more suitable as they knew that the British were experimenting with afterburners on the ASSa.7LR model however, as in the case of the Derwent V-R, no technical information was available.
After not renewing his contract, in 1956 Tank and a small group of collaborators; Evers; Geissler; Melzer; Mittelhuber; Pabst; Puffert; Rothkegel; Ruth and Starke traveled to Bangalore, India, where they finished and adapted the already conceived IA-40 Pulqui III for the use of the Bristol-Siddeley "Orpheus" 703. As a witness to this, at the Centro de Ensayos en Vuelo (Flight Test Center) of the FĂĄbrica Militar de Aviones de CĂłrdoba (Military Factory of Aircrafts), a large model for the wind tunnel of the IA-40 from 1954 is preserved that which is undoubtedly identical to the HAL Marut.
Ing. Wilhelm Bansemir, builder of the FW-200 Condor and the IA-33 Pulqui II and co-designer with MittelhĂŒber of the IA-40 Pulqui III, did not accompany Kurt TankÂŽs group to India.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
With the notable exception of the FA-18 Horner series, allied air forces that buy American tend to buy aircraft flown by the US Air Force for commonality in training, tactics, logistics, and interoperability. This was especially so during the 1960s. So, as good at the Super Tiger was, it really didn't have a realistic chance for foreign military sales. I had a friend who flew the original F-11F. One of it's design quirks was that it had a fuel tank in the vertical stabilizer. As a consequence, as this tank drained constant adjustments had to be made to the aircraft's trim. Also, the F-11F was a bit short on range and not really supersonic except in a dive, so after a very short stint as a first line fighter they were used as advanced trainers to give new Naval Aviators experience in advanced jet fighter tactics before moving on to fleet squadrons flying more advanced aircraft like the Crusader or Phantom. If it hadn't been for its use by the Blue Angels, the Tiger would have been merely an asterisk in naval aviation history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hi Ed. I like your style. Understated, and - I'm not sure how I should put this - with an accent which isn't 'posh', if you know what I mean... I thought - 'a youtuber with an accent like mine!'. But who is clearly articulate, and has done his research. Not a blip on that front. I imagine you are reading from a script of sorts, and that does occasionally come through, but you delivery is none the worse for it. I also imagine that you will get a little slicker in time. Just don't lose the 'real person' with it! Having said that, I like the content, and also like that it isn't all about the same kind of hardware. I love aeroplanes, but everything in the sphere of 'hard physical metalwork' does it for me - an engineer at heart. So details that appeal to me are all the usual suspects, and you do that, without droning on for half an hour with filler/waffle. Around 10 minutes is spot on, though the occasional longer one, where content allows, would be fine by me. Just don't go too short, or I find I am just settling in when it's all over. There, that's my two penn'orth for what it's worth (for those who remember 12 pence in a shilling, 20 of those in a pound!). Cheers bro
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Couple of corrections to a great video: it's Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation, not company. It was formed by BHP and General Motors. And CAC did not produce Beaufort bombers, that was the Department of Aircraft Production (DAP) that later became the Government Aircraft Factories (GAF). Both companies were built at Fishermans Bend in Melbourne, side by side, actually, so they could share the airstrip at Fishermans Bend (now covered by the Westgate Bridge). I worked at GAF in the late 70s to 1988, and everyone got the two companies mixed up. CAC followed the Mustang with the Avon Sabre and later wings and motors for the Mirage, they built Wirraways and later Winjeel trainers, too. GAF followed the Beaufort with the Beaufighter, Lincoln, Canberra, Mirage bodies and assembly, and lastly Nomad and F/A-18 assembly. GAF also produced Malka anti-tank rockets, Jindivik target drones, and Ikara anti-sub missiles. They are now part of Boeing, Australia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In reply to the questions that you pose in your video, I offer the following:
1. Was the Winter War between the Soviet Union and Finland part of World War II?
Yes. To me, the operative word in that question is 'WORLD'. It is not the Axis and Allied War. Granted, there could have been totally isolated conflicts between say Peru and Ecuador, but that is not the case here. This conflict was at least indirectly related to the situation between what were to become major WW2 combatants. I would include the Spanish Civil War as part of WW2. It was a proving ground for much that was to follow.
2. Was the Gamecock a fighter?
Yes. First, to me, it doesn't matter what the aircraft is called. What matters is the action taking place. In air to air combat, one aircraft is always the aggressor. That air craft, that is functioning as the aggressor, may be considered a fighter. The other aircraft may be also an aggressor (a fighter to fighter dog fight) or a non-aggressor, a defender. The defender may be a bomber, a transport or cargo aircraft, a trainer, a reconnaissance aircraft, etc. It may be able to fight back or not.
3. Does the action is question constitute a 'KILL'?
No. To me, 'KILL' as used in your video description implies air-to-air kill. The victim in this case was a ground target. The ground target may be moving, like a truck or a tank, or stationary. When an aircraft is taking off or landing, when does it change from a ground target to an aircraft in flight? When the wheels make contact with or break contact with the ground? I'll leave that question unanswered. In this context, 'KILL' should refer to air to air, 'DESTROYED' should refer to ground targets.
Thank you very much for your efforts. May you and yours stay well and prosper.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm getting to the end of your video library now. I pulled this one up, only to realize once I'd started that I'd already seen it. But the video is so good I watched it again.
All of these videos avoid the common mistakes I run into in Youtube Aviation content, they're not snarky and conceited, they're not running with the hype meter pegged into doomsday overdrive, they're highly accurate, and they don't have that grandiose 'I love to hear myself talk' quality that I find so off-putting on other channels. Also, generally, what we see is what you're talking about, and if it isn't, you're careful to note that.
I have to conclude that you've had formal training in history, or writing, or both. Well done.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm going to have to quit watching these episodes if you are going to continue to use bad language. TWICE in this episode alone, you said the very bad word of, "SCRAPPED". This is absolutely the worst thing that could be said of ANY aircraft, let alone one that is irreplaceable, like the Vickers Valiant Mk2B, (Low Altitude Penetration Pathfinder Variant), and the fleet of then "in-service" bombers, tankers, photo platforms, etc. Not one example was kept of either. It's a real shame to those of later generations who have not had the opportunity to see such aircraft, even if only in museums. I, personally, believe that all museum aircraft should be ABLE to fly, but not actually fly, as, all too often, the sole survivor of a rare aircraft is lost in a flying accident, usually killing its pilot as well. One that comes to mind was the beautifully done, multi-year full restoration of a Northrop flying wing bomber, quarter-scale flight test aircraft, (of which four were made - this being the last available), and then showing off for the crowds of people. Even though it was "restored" most of its structure was still from the 1940's and it broke apart in mid-air, killing its pilot. It should have been restored and then left on static display. That way, thousands, if not more, could have seen it in all of its glory. Now, there is nothing to see, and a life was lost. What are your thoughts?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One interesting point of the one or two P-40Qs (-3 and -4) that used of the wings off the XP-46 which as you said were not laminar flow, is that the airfoil used for the XP-46 was NACA series airfoil 23000, 23016.5 at the root and 23009 at the tip. The original P-40 used the identical airfoil to the DC-2, 2215 at the root and 2009 at the tip and almost a DC-3 airfoil which was 2215, 2206. As to the XP-46, the 23000 series airfoil was used on the Beech Staggerwing, D-18 series, Bonanza models 33, 35 and 36, Twin Bonanzas, Travel Airs and all Barons, Queen Airs and King Airs. Also don't forget that Douglas used the NACA 23000 series in the DC-4,6 and 7 series aircraft as well. and used a similar 23000 series on the A-20 and DC-5. The 23000 series airfoil makes one terrific handling wing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1