Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Not A Pound For Air To Ground" channel.

@gort8203 "One point to consider is that the book figures for range would not hold up well for a combat mission involving a lot of time spent joining up into squadron and group formations. Circling the field at low altitude while everyone gets joined up would impact the range of a jet more than it did for a piston. " Wrong. it has no more effect on the P-80 than it would on the P-47. In fact, with teh better speed and climb rates they can takeoff, form up, and climb faster, spending less time at high power. The range values apply the exact same way to the P-47 and others as they do to the P-80. Fighters didn't spend much time if any circling to form up, they formed up on teh way out. They could take off multiple at a time, and all the leaders have to do is slow down a bit until everyone catches up. You're grasping at straws and making false arguments, fishing for anything to claim they lacked the range of a piston fighter. the P-47 burned 100gal/hr in cruise, and over 200gal/hr in climb. The P-47 took nearly 40min to climb to altitude. the P-80 would have spent far less time climbing to altitude.
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
@jah886 Russians are nothing if not copy cats.
1
@jah886 says the guy with no facts and no valid counter argument to anything I said. just a lot of words, no substance.
1
@IIII-IllllllIIIIllIl legendary, becasue they've done it so many times that it's unavoidable. Tu-4, Swing wing bomber copying the B-1, Russians subs literally shared parts with German U-boats after WW2. Channelwing, Shuttle Buran, etc. the list is Very long.
1
@cactuslietuva .......blueprints.......mockups....... level of retardation in people these days is astounding.
1
@phunkracy no, I'm not a liar. Yes, internal structure may be different. that's what copies do. they are not 1-to-1 exact replicas. they are Copies. Just like copying homework, your hand writing will be different from mine, but if it's obvious the dumb kid in class submitted the same answers as the smart kid, word for word, it's obviously copied. Your refusal to face facts doesn't make me wrong. "In 1972, the Soviet Union launched a new multi-mission bomber competition to create a new supersonic, variable-geometry ("swing-wing") heavy bomber with a maximum speed of Mach 2.3, in response to the US Air Force B-1 bomber project. " B-1 first flight: 1974 Tu-160 first flight: 1981 (7yrs later) "The Buran program was started by the Soviet Union as a response to the United States Space Shuttle program and benefited from extensive espionage undertaken by the KGB of the unclassified US Space Shuttle program" US Shuttle first glide flight: 1977 US Shuttle first spaceflight: 1981 (9yrs development) Buran Shuttle first space flight: 1985 (11yrs development) US Shuttle development began: 1972 Buran development began 1974 (2yrs later) They even went so far as to copy the shuttle transport aircraft.
1
@2ndavenuesw481 The Germans lost WW2 the day they declared war on the US. The outcome was inevitable. If you can't see that, then that should be your cue that you know next to nothing about WW2. "When someone can't admit that one design and implementation had priority over another and pretends they were contemporary designs, it's because they're trying to obfuscate the facts for some peculiar motive." you talk a lot but don't say anything of consequence. Your assertion is childish and nonsensical. Baseless accusations. What you're rambling about has nothing to do with comparing the P-80 and Me-262.
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
@GreenBlueWalkthrough "As that flew over germany in WW2 and lead to one of the most common wing designns ever...." now you are just making crap up
1
2:12 missing the NAA Rapier, Phantom, Tomcat, etc.
1
@zacklewis342 and yet the rapier was covered, and aspects of its design did go into production. The Phantom 100% WAS a dedicated interceptor from day one. I have given actual presentations to aviation groups, in person, on this very topic.
1
@sealboyy6584 Russia has no allies because they are the bad guys, objectively. Russia struggles to sell their crap, because it sucks, objectively. NATO doesn't mandate upgrades of things. Many NATO nations still have Soviet gear.
1
@thepolishnz and now those countries are switching to Gripens, Rafale, F-16, F-35, etc. depending upon budget. "ukraines front line fighters are the su27 and mig29." not anymore. they have almost nothing left, and are getting F-16s now.
1
@thelovertunisia US airbases don't get bombed.
1
they're good planes, and the A-26 too
1
because there isn't much toe appreciate
1
copy =/= identical that's not how reverse engineering works. the country copying something always makes changes for their own engineering and manufacturing capabilities, as well as changing things they prefer to do differently. 6:15 this is a childishly bad attempt at overstating how hard reverse engineering really is. It is NOT that complicated. Many features don't require measuring at ALL to understand how they work, the operating principles, etc. Reverse engineering is surprisingly easy when done by a skilled engineer. I should know, I've done it many times. Often times I can reverse engineer something just by looking at it and getting to take it apart and play with it physically. I rarely need to measure anything. 6:40 proving it was a copy The more exacting the copy of something, the less those copying it understood how it worked.
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
@Сталкер-ь2х took the Soviets until the 70s to get their copy to work right.
1
same with the AIM9 Mig15 = Ta183 copy with a British engine T-34 used US Christy suspension.
1
@wbertie2604 prove it
1
@wbertie2604 US had already experimented with 20mm on B-29
1
communists are always very paranoid, even of harmless civilians minding their own business.
1
the Pirate also highlights the challenges of an engineer design team transitioning from designing slower traditional airplanes to transonic and supersonic designs. It's a different set of design parameters than they were used to, and not only that but they had to invent the new criteria as they went as their were not yet many books at the time on how to design high speed aircraft as nobody had yet successfully done a lot of it yet. And Vought later made the F-8 Crusader, the first supersonic navy fighter, and a VERY successful airframe that was a great dogfighter, very fast, and was evolved into a Mach 3+ design and an all weather attack aircraft, and enjoyed a LONG service life.
1
the F-8 was the best air-to-air fighter. and that's partly why the F-4 was a multirole fighter/interceptor.
1
We remember the Hart because of the MASSIVE impact it left on military aviation. It was the transition from the focus on Turn&Burn dogfighting (maneuverability being the most important trait) to Boom&Zoom dogfighting (speed being the most important trait). And because it eventually evolved into the Fury/Demon, Hurricane, Typhoon, Tempest, and Sea Fury.
1