Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Not A Pound For Air To Ground"
channel.
-
49
-
22
-
14
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tedarcher9120 " F-111B was supposed to be used together with F4, with f-111 taking longer range missions. "
That I agree with.
"But with f-14 Navy wanted their cake and eat it too, they wanted it to do anything that f-4 could and anything that f-111 could and it ended up with nothing. "
Wrong, they ended up with a BEAST of a dogfighter and interceptor, and a Powerful missile that is still having its legacy felt today.
" It couldn't dogfight like f-4 "
100% wrong, the F-14 is stupid good compared to the F-4. F-4 literally doesn't stand a chance if the F-14 pilot has any clue how to fight.
" it couldn't do long range strikes or interceptions like f-111."
neither could the F-4. so what?
"Yes, f-111 was retired, five years later than f-14, "
False.
F-111 retired in 1998.
F-14 retired in 2006, 8yrs after the F-111
F-111 introduced into service in 1967.
F-14 Introduced to service in 1974, 7yrs later.
The F-14 served 32yrs.
The F-111 served 31yrs.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@enhancedutility266 you're saying that thinking Russia knows how to fight. They have never been that good at warfare, even prior to WW2. they never had good leadership, never had good equipment, never had forward thinking, etc. and they always fought defensive minded, and using volume attacks of men and material to overwhelm an enemy. they don't know how to do anything else. And they've never had a strong and wealthy economy to support the things they aspire to. and they lacked an electronics industry.
To give you a general sense of how bad their aircraft are, no one buys their civilian aircraft, and only poor nations and belligerent nations the Western powers refuse to sell too buy their military aircraft.
Russia built its A-50 AWACs 20yrs after the US already had theirs operational, and the A-50 had issues and was not comfortable for the crew. It took the Soviets 20yrs to reverse engineer the AIM9 and create their own properly functioning and operational equivalent. And Russia probably doesn't know how to build a new A-50now even if they wanted to. And even then likely lack the necessary electronics components.
Russia is, and never was, the threat people always believed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tedarcher9120 wrong. the USN had the F-4 interceptor the whole time.
"Second, it was stupendously expensive to buy and more expensive to maintain. More expensive than f-22. "
but it was stupid good too. so the cost is justified. teh early purchase cost was high becasue it was a technological marvel fro its time. We've benefited a LOT from what we learned from teh F-14, making the cost worth it. But the maintenance costs are no joke and the reason it is pretty much the only 4th gen US fighter fromthe 1970s and 1980s retired thus far, while F-15, F-16, A-10, and F-18 all got life extension programs.
"Third, Navy lied and f-14 wasn't even a fighter and didn't have any multirole capability until the 1990s."
it was a fighter in every sense of the word, and would be a dominant fighter even today.
" F-111 could dogfight and was more robust,"
no, it could not dogfight, it was a pig. it couldn't win a fight with ANY contemporary fighters of its day.
"US Navy could have had a functioning aircraft already in 1960s"
They did, F-8, F-4, F11F-1F, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gort8203 "Of course it took time to form up into large formations, and that involved circling the field at lower altitude where the jets would suck down a lot more fuel than the pistons of the P-47. "
even if they did circle, they have the fuel onboard to give them the range stated, same as the piston fighters. you're grasping at straws here.
"That's not grasping at straws, that's considering real world escort operations instead of thinking like a simple 4-ship sortie. I don't need to fish for anything. Have a nice day in the perfect world your airplanes inhabit."
It's 100% wat you're doing. I've been researching this intensely for the past 2yrs. I now have accumulated 91 physical books on teh P-51, about 60 books on the P-47, tens more on the P-40, P-38, A6M, K-43, Me109, etc. and have been debating range issues and escort fighter operations for over 1yr now, to the point I've started writing a book on the topic, loaded with sources, charts, calculations, etc. All from primary sources, mission reports, etc. I'm also a professional Airplane and Helicopter pilot, and an Aerospace Engineer. I have tens of digital copies of flight manuals, service manuals, mission reports, flight test reports and flight test data from WW2.
What sources do you have? You couldn't even look up specs on the P-80. Cite a source for your baseless strawman, as I probably have it and can verify your claims.
1
-
@gort8203 "You don't think there is a difference in fuel consumption between a P-80 and P-47 at low altitude. Then you think the range figures of the airplanes include fuel for circling."
The range is for whatever they want to use it for. Yes, ranges vary depending upon power settings and altitude.
When a P-47 has an effective combat radius of 450mi, and the P-80 has an effective combat radius of 410mi, if they both circle to form up, which they often didn't as it was wasteful and unnecessary (Formation takeoffs in quick succession and joining up on the climb out), then they BOTH experience a comparable range reduction. You can't apply one criteria to one plane, but not to the other.
According to the P-80 flight manual performance charts, the 825mi range is for 10k ft cruise. But when they go up to 30k ft, such as long range bomber escort, the range increased to 1375mi (680mi radius), which exceeds the P-47D capabilities.
"Goodbye, I'm done here."
Probably for the best. Stick to things you know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rosnoseros The P-80 first flew in early January 1944. The P-80 was superior to the Me-262 in every way, and served into the early 1990s with the US (as the T-33).
P-80 had superior speed, range, climb rate, service ceiling, turn rate, acceleration, etc.
And the He280 was the first ever jet fighter in history.
DeHavilland Vampire first flew in 1943, and the Gloster Meteor first flew in spring 1944. And both of those planes served until well after WW2. the Soviets tried to copy the Me262 with the Su-9 and it failed miserably. Japan tried copying the Me262 with the Nakajima Nikka, with performance unknown.
And in 1947, only 3yrs later, 2yrs after ww2, the US broke the sound barrier with the BellX-1 and with the F-86. And the F-100 first flew a mere 6yrs later in 1953.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TyrannoJoris_Rex Aircraft structures, cooling systems, aerodynamic features, circuits, pumps/motors, landing gear, tools, car parts, farm equipment, couplings, appliances, firearms, military hardware, parts from NASA, etc.
and I hold patents for many such devices. Some patents are for things I reverse engineered and then improved further. I just reverse engineered another tool at work 2 days ago (it didn't work as well as it should have, so I figured out what and what to do to fix it).
When you understand the fundamental principles behind how things work, you can look at how it was made, and look at the internals and figure out what they do and why. And then you can ask yourself if there is anything you would have done differently or better. Look for things to improve. No need to measure things to understand what is going on. And if you understand what is going on and why, you can design your own device from scratch and do all the necessary math yourself without having to rely upon measuring their design. Sometimes you might measure a few features, such as trying to figure out the diameter of nozzles or orifices to figure out what their mixture ratio might have been, and stuff like that. Start somewhere close to them and dial it in from there yourself.
Sometimes I look up patents for various things just for fun to understand how they work and to inspire new ideas. Variable pitch propeller, threshing machines, engine parts, shocks, etc. I also find research papers for other things that were never patented and figure out how they work.
A big part of engineering is not reinventing the wheel for no reason. look at what others have done to save time, so you can spend your time innovating where it actually matters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1