Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Ed Nash's Military Matters" channel.

  1. hardly
    1
  2. 1:10 the Fokker D.VIII/E.V?
    1
  3.  @sebclot9478  False. NAA knew that building another company's plane meant their chances of ever designing and building their own were basically zero. They had a brilliant team of engineers on staff that had already proven their skills with earlier designs such as the Mitchell and Dragon twin engine bombers, and the texan trainer. their lead designer already had been working on teh Mustang design since the nineteen thirties and had the benefit of time and hindsight and knew all the Warhak's design flaws and benefited fro NACA aerodynamic and drag studies that came after the Warhawk already existed. NAA knew without a shadow of a doubt they could do better, as they already knew everything wrong with the warhawk in hindsight.
    1
  4.  @sebclot9478  wrong, that's exactly why NAA did it. NAA had an exceptional team of engineers with a very can-do innovative attitude. I've worked on multiple teams and companies like this and know how awesome it is to work with such people and leadership. they had multiple successes already, just not a fighter. and they had the basis for a design and had been working closely with NACA for years. NAA was a business and they knew that if they spent the war building another company's airplanes, they \'d never recover from it. if you knew anything about aviation history and businesses you'd understand what that means.
    1
  5.  @sebclot9478  "They didn't need to build a fighter for the British to get their foot in the door. They could have used the P-40 license to demonstrate great build quality and then pitched their own design. They are not mutually exclusive." this is 100% false. you clearly don't understand the economicas of airplane manufacturing and contracts. production quality wont win you a contract for a fighter you don't have. they'll just ask you to build more of the same. "But so was the opportunity to kill the license fee." no self-respecting aerospace company builds the airplanes of another company, even with No licensing fee. again, you clearly know nothing about eh economics of WW2 aircraft production. "Having an exceptional team of engineers is why you would take that chance. But this isn't a game. This is a business. Losing the license fees opens up a BIG chunk of change." blah blah blah, you talk a lot and think you know, but you don't. Go read teh actual history.
    1
  6.  @sebclot9478  "kid"? Where do you get the idea you're in a position to lecture anyone? Insults and "appeal to Authority" is a logical fallacy. By using such fallacies instead of arguing on merits of your ideas and the documented facts, you are admitting defeat. Such is the rules of scientific debate. I could cite my laundry list of qualifications and credentials, but that doesn't make me right either. Only the facts and logic of my argument can win. But in addition to my extensive experiences, achievements, knowledge, and skills in these topics, i have an exhaustive library of source material on a short list of aircraft, chief among them is the P-51. Name a book specifically about the Mustang and i probably own a copy. And i have been debating this aircraft specifically with many top experts. Pilots who've flown the aircraft, first-hand accounts. Engineering data. Mechanics who've worked professionally on both the Allison and Merlin engines. Talked with authors of some of the most prominent books on the topic, and much more. I've been researching and debating WW2 fighter aircraft for many years now in excruciating detail. But again, my credentials and past research alone doesn't make me right. My arguments being logically consistent and backed up by facts and evidence is what makes my arguments scientifically valid.
    1
  7.  @bobjoned3398  Yes, the A-36 was a stop gap fighter, but it 100% was intended for combat and they were all used in combat till the last plane could no longer fly. The US invented dive bombing, not the Germans, but it worked, as the SBD showed. The A-36 became the best dive bomber of WW2,a nd the only one allowed to do danger close dive bombing in support of troops in contact. The Second best dive bomber of WW2 was the F4U Corsair. The dive brakes were NEVER wired shut, this is a lie that has been refuted by Multiple experienced A-36 combat veterans. they specifically address this lie, and they flatly refute it with prejudice. Read any first hand accounts of A-36 pilots. Even Robert S. Johnson flew the A-36 at one point and had high praise for it. Many A-36 pilots Preferred the A-36 to the P-47 for ground attack, and resisted giving up their A-36 till they literally ran out of airplanes. Even the Germans that test flew the P-47 said it was a sluggish dog below 20k ft, and that they could never get one to go over 310mph at lower altitudes. Read the first hand accounts of the Germans who test flew captured allied aircraft. They didn't much care for the P-47, but they did agree it performed much better above 20k ft and dove well. But a dog at low altitude. Even a P-40 was faster and more maneuverable than a P-47 below 15k ft, and was equally as tough an airframe as the P-47. Ever notice how no P-47s raced at Reno after the war?
    1
  8. Russia: attempting to invade countries without cause Russia: "how dare the countries (NATO) we're threatening defend themselves!
    1
  9. I wouldn't be surprised if the US held younger aircraft in reserve in AZ incase of war with China. The USAF has recognized the issue with slow to build, expensive fighters, compared to superiority in numbers. Numbers will matter in a war with China.
    1
  10.  @WALTERBROADDUS  Wars never make sense, but they happen none the less.
    1
  11. @Sean Price Unless China starts one. Never say never. And don't get me wrong, even if the US and China did go to war, the US would be stupid to attempt a land invasion. There is a far easier way to defeat china militarily, and I'm certain the Pentagon already has a similar idea.
    1
  12. this aircraft is proof positive why the Russians/Soviets come under constant criticism in WW2, and why that criticism is wholly justified.
    1
  13. They are standing up a laser battalion in the Army. Had lasers aboard warships for years now. Lots of anti-drone and base defense laser testing for over a decade now as well.
    1
  14.  @McRocket  Missiles are fragile too, which is exactly the sort of target these would be attacking. And what branch the laser is tested in is irrelevant. once developed and packaged small enough, it can fit on a plane. Look how fair lasers have come since the airborne laser project. look how small they are getting. Whether tested on the ground or in the air, it will get mounted to a fighter when small enough, and we're fast approaching that moment. But standing up a laser battalion shows lasers are being deployed in active service, in production quantity, and planes will have them sooner than later.
    1
  15.  @McRocket  Laser is a laser, it doesn't know which branch of service it's employed in. They have tested airborne lasers. Not put into production, but working airborne lasers. At the current rate of technological progress and size reduction, if you project that forward, they will become production units very soon. Given that the Army is able to install production units on a Stryker, and others have been tested on Humvees and such, it is getting into the range of being able to be mounted on a fighter already. And those lasers have been tested against rockets, drones, artillery, and so the anti-SAM, and anti-Air-to-air role is perfect for these lasers as well. The tech has been developed, and continues to shrink. It has been repeatedly tested, and is now being pushed into production in other roles. It's a mere matter of time now. Lots of development in laser tech right now. New tech always progresses slowly at first. But we're past that phase of evolution with lasers now.
    1
  16.  @McRocket  Because, your disbelief in the progression of technology requires a counter argument. Despite historical evidence to the contrary of technological development and adoption, you make the same claims many in history have made, and they were wrong. Given the current state of technology, it is inevitable now. Also, you don't get to decide who gets to comment. You can choose to stop yourself. So while you may decide you're done, you don't get to decide for me. When you dispute a idea, the other person gets to respond. You can disagree, ignore it...whatever.
    1
  17. the first all-aluminum monoplane flew in 1909, barely. engines just weren't powerful enough at that time to lift heavier designs.
    1
  18. ​ @owenshebbeare2999  It's not bias to think most of their designs are truly ugly. It's just personal preference. Bias would be refusing to recognize when they make a contribution to aviation history or the advancement of aerospace, regardless how good the design does/doesn't look, simply because it was a British design. But I both acknowledged some of their designs are beautiful, even artistically so, and that some of the noteworthy designs were aesthetically pleasing.
    1
  19. 2:45 thing looks an awful lot like a mashup between a spitfire (wing & landing gear) and a hurricane (tail)
    1
  20. the Pentagon did a study on future underground warfare years ago, as a result of increasing us of drones and smart weapons.
    1
  21. blowing up your engine (blew up shortly after the supposed 505 run) in an unverified run that was never reproduced does not count as a record. this is pathetic. do better.
    1
  22. I know a jet pack was used in a movie
    1
  23. Martin 167: the Honey Badger of the sky
    1
  24. right? USN and USMC have done it for years.
    1
  25. Happy to say I know about this one
    1
  26. Merry Christmas! I love the F-8 Crusader and Crusader 3
    1
  27. To be fair, the Canadians built quite a few of those carriers for us.
    1
  28.  @ferrous3262  prove it
    1
  29. The TDN-1 was used successfully in combat in WW2 against Japan. And had a higher success rate than Russian guided weapons are having in Ukraine.
    1
  30.  @johnladuke6475  but Russian guided weapons aren't supposed to be piloted at all....
    1
  31.  @johnladuke6475  oh, they're hitting stuff. Apartment buildings, Cafes, toy factory warehouses, etc. But even when aimed, most of them fail to hit, or fail to even reach their target. And more fail to explode.
    1
  32. US hve developed a number of unmanned naval vessels over the past few decades. Some armed, some not, some are even submarines.
    1
  33. Mig 15 = Ta 183 + UK jet engine
    1
  34. yes, teh corrupt democrats have been war mongers and profiteers for too long.
    1
  35.  @I_am_not_a_dog  if you're not taking it seriously, then why comment? the issue is people spreading false information when the facts are clear. this lads to "old wives tales" that just persist and never die. and it does cause problems elsewhere. Although it does have one very positive side effect....it' makes it very easy to spot the uneducated idiots later.
    1
  36.  @pike100  compared to teh fastest piston aircraft of WW2, the P-47 is very slow, and blow 15k ft, its VERY SLOW. Th Germans hated it and called it a dog. It also acceleratd painfully slow on takeoff and at low altitudes. A P-40 is faster than a P-47 blow 15k ft.
    1
  37.  @mossthatrules77  no, they test flew captured examples. The Germans were Very excited to get their hands on the first flying example of a P-47 and were eager to test it. They all wanted to fly it to see what it was all about. But once they flew it, they were amazed how slow it accelerated, how much runways it used up getting airborne, how slow it climbed. They described it as being a Dog, they were ONLY impressed with its high altitude performance. They cam away very disappointed, and when you hear them compare it to the Mustang, they loved the Mustang, hated the P-47. They thought the P-47 was better than it actually was and they were sorely disappointed.
    1
  38.  @LV_CRAZY  I've been learning more about the bombing campaign against Japan lately, as well as more about the Malaysia and New Guinea campaigns in WW2. I know the P-47s were used in the Pacific, more than many probably realize and they are rarely mentioned. I did realize the P-47N was a big improvement, but thought it was only made in small numbers, being a latecomer (like the A-1 skyraider, Bearcat, Sea Fury and others). I have not heard of the P-47N replacing P-51s, but I will look into the P-47s in the Pacific more, as I've been meaning to anyways. I've never been a huge fan of the P-47 myself, though I know well the stories and respect it. But the P-47N really changed my mind about the P-47. It's unfortunate it came along so late. It feels like the P-47N was what the P-47 wanted to be all along, trapped inside it's own skin for too long, so to speak.
    1
  39. US doesn't operate the way Ukraine or Russia has.
    1
  40. i had a feeling this was a result of his video.....
    1
  41. Sea Fury....
    1
  42.  @xmeda  Current lasers and targeting systems already do all of those things. Vehicle mounted lasers have already been made and tested. If a Humvee can power a laser, then so can a jet engine.
    1
  43. ​ @xmeda  I never claimed fighter planes hunt Mach 4 missiles. Show yourself an example of your own ludicrous ideas. Now, for those who actually have some understanding of actual tactics, when attacking the enemy, and they fire missiles at you, and those missiles are hunting the Airplane, you shoot them down, regardless of Mach speed at time of destruction.
    1
  44. China getting involved = China annexing the country
    1
  45. this could very well be that 6th gen prototype and tech demonstrator we've heard about.
    1
  46. Parasite fighters never worked well. The real solution was self-escort (F4U, P-47, P-38, A-36, Mosquito, F-16, F-18, F-15, etc.).
    1
  47.  @gibbsm  Nor are most countries that develop aircraft. Aircraft are expensive, so you emulate what works to save money. Iran, China, Israel, Japan, South Korea... even Russia.
    1
  48.  @wbertie2604  I'm only counting US service.
    1
  49.  @wbertie2604  I am discounting other air services, otherwise you end up with things like P-51 and F4U serving into the 1980s, and other ridiculous stuff. Certain aircraft weren't sold to other nations as other nations couldn't afford them, had no mission for them (who needs a B-58 first strike nuclear bomber if they have no nukes?), or the sensitive technology was not allowed for export. All these factors skew the comparison and make your claims arbitrary and subjective.
    1
  50.  @wbertie2604  In what way is it limiting? it ensures apples to apples objective comparisons. I know you new age woke people value feelings over logic, but I wont tolerate it.
    1