Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "The Gloster F.5/34: Almost the British Zero?" video.

Actually, it's reverse of the Zero. Vertical fin Forward of the horizontal stabilizer. Zero had the stab forward of the fin. Many aircraft played with such arrangements, not just the Zero. The debate over such arrangements still continues on modern aircraft design. There are reasons for all configurations, but it also comes down to the expected operation of a given design to decide what makes sense. The P-51 also put the fin aft of the stab, as well as the P-40 and many others. Putting the rudder aft of the stabilizer in the Zero would give the Zero greater rudder authority in high angle of attack maneuvering, were it not for the fact the rudder doesn't extend below the stabilizer. Essentially, during slow or high-G maneuvering. At high AOA, the stab can block airflow to the rudder. Moving the rudder aft gets more of it into clean unobstructed air while maneuvering, restoring authority as compared to straight and level flying.
4
Don't forget, no radios. But the armor wasn't always as lacking as people think. But the airframe itself was more fragile than typical American aircraft. Also, many self-sealing tank designs have reduced fuel capacity for the same volume of fuel tank than those without self-sealing features (not just weight penalty, but a fuel volume penalty). Also, many Japanese designs had smaller payload capacity (bombs) than their counterparts.
4
Radial engine fighters obsolete? F4U (a 1930s design), F6f, F4F, P-47, FW190, F8F, Sea Fury, A-1, etc. But speed over pure maneuverability was established in the interwar period with the Hawker Hart. Maneuverability matters not if you can't catch your opponent. The faster plane can run away, or run you down.
4
The zeros did actually have some armor. It was more a matter of having less durable airframes to save weight. Japan also didn't have radios, to save weight. But I agree with your assessment. The other designs weren't inferior, just being employed against the Zero and other designs incorrectly.
3
@Thekilleroftanks I Literally said the Zero had armor. Yes, they had radios, but removed them for various reasons through the war, i was generalizing. I was thinking specifically of the Val such, and Japanese aircraft overall. an F4U could carry at least 4000lb of ordinance, I'd like to see a Zero try that. Compared to other dive bombers in the war, the Val had one of the lighter bomb loads. The Japanese wanted the range and maneuverability, but such things come at a cost early on when engines are less powerful. Next time you try correcting someone, make sure you read what they actually wrote, and realize that a simple comment is not a History Thesis and doesn't include ALL possible variables, so Massive amounts of generalizing are necessary.
3
@csjrogerson2377 He stated it was flawed due to using a radial engine. And then in a separate statement pointed out how this particular radial engine was underpowered for its time. But he later then went on to say it would "never be able to compete with contemporary streamlined, liquid cooled aircraft". He continually implied that radial engines of any kind were obsolete. Many of us know that wasn't the case, but many people watching the video who don't know better Will draw that conclusion. The choice between Maneuverability or Speed, is Not dependent upon whether you chose a radial engine over an inline engine. It's merely a matter of horsepower and aerodynamics overall. A radial engine doesn't make a plane tough (see most Japanese designs), nor does using an inline engine make an airplane weak (P-40, IL-2...). A radial engine doesn't make a plane slow (Bearcat, F4U, Sea Fury...), nor does an inline engine make a plane super fast (P-40, P-39, Bf109...) Never mind the fact that radial engine airplanes outlasted inline water cooled in military service (in the US in particular). Aircraft such as the A-26, A-1D, C-47, F4U... lasted in active combat service as late as the Vietnam War era. Some countries operated them even longer (yes, P-51s and such lasted pretty long too, but less than the radial varieties). Many airplanes started out with weak radials and did just fine against the Zero, such as the F4F, particularly later in the war when they got bigger engines and some airframe improvements. Also, he incorrectly stated the Zero hacked up Allied airplanes in Asia, where as in reality, most of that was done by Ki-27 and Ki-43 type Japanese aircraft. The Japanese Army was responsible for the Asia campaign, and the Navy for the Pacific campaign. The Zero was largely a Navy fighter. Most aircraft the P-40 Flying Tigers faced were Not Zeros at all, for example. People kept mis-identifying other similar shaped planes as Zeros, the same way M4 Sherman tankers in Europe and Africa kept mis-identifying German Panzers as Tigers, when in reality only 3 actual engagements with Tigers can be confirmed. I don't need a lesson in fighter tactics, as it had nothing to do with my comment. I was addressing the fact he was right in that speed had become more important than pure maneuverability, so being underpowered was a weakness regardless of the engine type. Playing Devil's Advocate and acknowledging that things are far from simply "black and white". However, seeing as you brought it up, you most definitely Can get in a slow speed dogfight with a Zero, assuming you're more maneuverable than him. But, hopefully you're also able to climb and go reasonably fast as well, otherwise the Zero will "boom and zoom" you instead. Whether a plane uses Boom and Zoom, or Turn and Burn is RELATIVE to the target you are facing. If they are slower, but more maneuverable, Boom and Zoom them. If they are faster but less maneuverable, Turn and Burn them. The Zero was not a Turn and Burn fighter against Every possible opponent it faced or might have faced. But in the end, the guy with the faster plane holds the initiative in the fight (if they have any clue what they are doing), as they can essentially run away or re-engage at their leisure. The Bf109 was no slouch in the Turn and Burn department, yet the P-40 did well against some models by out maneuvering them. Yet the same P-40 was a Boom and Zoom fighter against many Japanese types. You adapt to the threat you face, and play to your strengths over their weaknesses, however that matchup plays out.
3
@shelbyseelbach9568 Gotta learn to read between the lines better. people make mistakes in writing, and you learn to read past that to see what they were clearly trying to say. I have typos and mix words around all the time too, usually from writing too fast. It is speculation, but most of what we do in life is based on pure speculation.
2
@GbbJunkie depends on the maneuver.
2
@davidthelander1299 You said that. Do you mind sharing which video covered it?
2
@davidthelander1299 I'm sure I saw it at one point, I watch all his videos and have even chatted with him a bit on topics, but I don't recall the conclusions. I'll take a look again.
2
@shelbyseelbach9568 He's saying that given the weight, the horsepower of the Zero was relatively powerful, and adequate for the design early on.
1
@shelbyseelbach9568 I would have used the term "underpowered" to describe the engine, and reworded it differently myself. So i get where you are coming from, and agree others might be confused as well.
1
@shelbyseelbach9568 In many cases you'd be correct, but that is a purely absolutist viewpoint. It is not the only viewpoint. Ever heard of the Telephone game? People swap words out when repeating things all the time, not realizing how dramatically a single word swap can change the entire meaning of the sentence. Journalists do this all the time when they try to relay info from an interview on a topic they know nothing about or don't understand. Most people do this sort of thing on a daily basis when relaying information without even realizing it. The phrase "read between the lines" exists for a reason. You can desire for all the answers to be spelled out for you by others, all the answers given to you, and every action and decision laid out for you like a child, or you can choose to learn to communicate and learn effectively like everyone else should be doing. But nobody is perfect, and we all make mistakes from time to time, and so we need to be intelligent enough to recognize this and adapt.
1
@shelbyseelbach9568 You very cleary did ask a question. So if answers were not your objective, why bother commenting at all and make us guess what your desired response was? Why was there any need for you to comment at all? If you've already made up your mind that the information was unclear or misguided, against, why bother commenting at all? Also, if you seek answers from YouTube comments, might I suggest a library or historical/scientific book instead? There are millions of comments on YouTube, so why did you single out this one? Seems to me you find his comment useful and meaningful enough to comment on it and seek an answer. Otherwise, why did you bother commenting with a question?
1
@shelbyseelbach9568 And how's that? The rest of us understood the unusual use of "overpowered", why couldn't you?
1
 @shelbyseelbach9568 Yes, we already went over that. We are reading between the lines. If you don't agree, then ignore it.
1
@shelbyseelbach9568 "you continue to make my point, and not have the intelligence to even see it." That's not a retort, that's what a person does when they are losing and have no argument. They resort to bullying, name calling, character assassination, deflecting, avoiding answering any questions, etc.
1
@shelbyseelbach9568 What is "double talking"? My goal is not to look intelligent, it's to understand why you insist on treating everyone rudely, and then expecting them to respond to your demands. Everyone else seems to understand the comment but you. You just don't like the answer. If you see right through me, then what is it you see? I'm truly curious.
1
@shelbyseelbach9568 I was commenting to agree, and saw you asking a question. i answered. And yes, you are being very rude. You claim to be making a point, but I see nothing constructive being added, only criticism for the sake of argument. If you don't care, why keep responding? You ask questions, and make demands of others, yet refuse to answer any questions yourself. You still haven't explained why you bothered to comment at all in the first place given that you didn't value the comment you responded to, and claim to not care about. You care enough to keep responding. Each time contributing nothing to the discussion.
1
@shelbyseelbach9568 You responded to the original comment only ONCE. The rest was you getting upset with me for trying to answer your question. "LOL. If your say so. Certainly not how his comment reads." So if the comment was not satisfactory to you, nor was mine and others' explanations, then why did you comment? What answer were you hoping to get? "I don't know what he meant to say, I only know what he actually said. Everything else is pure speculation." Exactly, which is why others commented. " I wasnt asking for answers, he was trying to convey information. He either did so clearly or he didn't. If i was just going to guess the information he wanted to convey, there would be no need for him to speak at all. " You pretty clearly dismissed the comment here, and very rudely disregarded the commenter you were supposedly seeking clarification from. You plainly admit, after asking the question, that you didn't actually want a response either, so why ask if you don't want an answer? That's rather rude in and of itself. And once again, you resort to continual baseless arguments such as insults, sexism, name calling, avoiding the questions, dismissing arguments, and downright lying.
1
@shelbyseelbach9568 I am quoting you directly, arguing with facts... that's how a technical or scientific debate is conducted. Yet you only respond with responses that are not valid in any way, childish even, and think you've somehow proven your point. You still haven't answered, what sort of response were you expecting from your original comment? But I'll leave it to any unfortunate people who happen to read all of this to decide who is correct here.
1
@shelbyseelbach9568 never said you did, but you can't "win" a discussion without making your case. Childish behavior is not how one proves their point, unless their point is to show immaturity. Others will decide.
1
Same engine that powered the "inferior" (according to the video)1930s era F4U, and the F6F.
1
Western aircraft weren't inferior to Japanese early in WW2, they simply didn't align with Japanese doctrine and fighting style/preference. Many pilots became aces in these supposedly inferior aircraft against the Japanese, and those "inferior" early designs (such as F4F, P-40, P-38, and F4U) lasted in service the entire war, even as those "superior" Japanese aircraft were removed from front line service due to inferior performance. lots of bias in the blanket assertion that Japanese designs were superior.
1
@Thekilleroftanks You keep commenting on my comments, thinking you're correcting me, but you've been wrong about what I said every time. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills. One, the Zero was a good design, and yes, it had more potential left in it. But that's not what I said is it? I said Western designs, of the same period early in the war, were not Inferior. Totally different than what you are insinuating. Also note, that I was not talking about the Zero alone, I was talking about ALL Japanese aircraft of the period. The F4U was Absolutely a superior aircraft to the Zero and most early Japanese aircraft of WW2. The P-38 was also very successful in the Pacific against the Japanese, as were the P-40s and F4F once the pilots learned simply not to turn fight the Japanese. F4Fs were still in widespread service in the Pacific at the end of WW2 and were holding their own. Plenty of early war aces in the F4F and P-40 as well against the Japanese. Just as the F4F was improved, but not a superior design, with newer engines, so too could the Zero be improved. But the Zero was never going to be the all around performer that other designs proved given the focus on weight and maneuverability. There was simply less room left for improvement. Many other late war Japanese designs were much better than the zero and started getting on-par with Western designs, but too little too late. The video was claiming that All Japanese early war designs were overall superior to All Western Early war designs, and that simply is not true. The F4U was a 1930s design and went on to be one of the best fighters in all of WW2, up there with the P-47N, P-51, Ta-152, Sea Fury, Mosquito, etc. Many of the best WW2 designs were western fighters, and the F4U was one of the earliest and oldest. The P-38 was no slouch, and the F4F is more evenly matched with the Zero than most people want to accept. The F4F had different strengths and weaknesses than the Zero, but in capable hands, the victor of a fight between a Zero or F4F early in the war would come down to pilot skill, knowledge, and discipline to fight his fight and not get suckered into fighting the opponent's fight. The P-40 also fought Zeros in the southern Pacific and Alaska, and performed well against many early war Japanese designs other than the Zero. Might I suggest reading up on the Flying Tigers, and Robert Scott's story. The P-40 was not inferior to early Japanese designs.
1
I question this, as the rudder doesn't extend below the stabilizer, like most western designs do. Thus the rudder and fin could find itself fully shadowed by the stabilizer. But given the Zero's handling, I'd be rash to question it's effectiveness without assuming they might have gotten it right all the same, given my lack of specifics on the Zero in high AOA conditions.
1
@GbbJunkie It's very possible, but from looking at images, the rudder looks awfully hidden up there above the stabilizer to me.
1
@davidthelander1299 I did find the video, a short one. However, unlike Greg's other videos, he doesn't actually explain Why it supposedly works, which is unfortunate. So it still leaves the question in my mind. I don't deny the Zero's abilities, but without scientific evidence and/or an aerodynamic explanation, I simply cannot rule out the fact the rudder is "shadowed". Now, there might well be something unique about the zero compared to other airframes that isn't being accounted for than made it work. This is why I still have doubt, and why I wish to get to the bottom of it eventually, to know for sure one way or another.
1
@GbbJunkie But it still happened, and it was done to improve performance by saving weight. I know not All Japanese aircraft (including fighters) didn't have them. I'll be more specific next time.
1
@Thekilleroftanks I am Generalizing. They took the radios out for various reasons, to improve performance by saving weight. Yes, the airframes could handle their Designed stresses, but once you shoot a few holes in them, they don't hold together so well anymore. Whereas Western airplanes weren't built as fragile and could withstand some pretty amazing damage to their airframe itself.
1
@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
Sea Fury....
1