Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Military Aviation History" channel.

@bobsakamanos4469 "The LAST thing anyone should do is to argue based on the greg videos. He refuses to acknowledge or correct mistakes, omissions or untruths." fair point, as I've called him out before many times using his own source materials and he threatened to block me for it. But he does a good job overall. but the key is to look at his sources more than his personal claims, assumptions, or opinions. My sources are the same as his, but I've also been able to talk to people who have and still are working on the merlin and Allison engines, and they all swear by the allison for numerous reasons not in the books. I've also talked with authors of some of the books people cite. Detonation was not an engine issue. mostly carb, turbo, and pilot skill related to engine mixture control were primary issues. the other allison aircraft largely did not suffer these problems due to different mixture controls, no turbo, etc. And Allisons remain the preferred engine of restorations today.
1
9:43 what "substantial issues" did the P-51 have when introduced to the US service? I want a detailed list, becasue I have not heard of any substantial issues in teh timeline you mentioned.
1
@simonmoorcroft1417 the simple answer is there is only One way for Ukraine to get Switchblades.....via US gov donations. You can't buy switchblades on the open market. Unless Uncle Sam sends more of them in an aid package, Ukraine can't get more. And then there is cost, as you pointed out.
1
@abdirahmanahmadalifarah926 JDAM is an air delivered weapon. I'm not aware fo Russian aircraft bein able to use it (like those Migs Ukraine has). I'm not aware fo a single Ukrainian aircraft using a JDAM even once. HIMARs keeps striking critical targets, and using ATACMs regularly, new videos every day of HIMARs cluster munitions striking russian targets. Cope harder you russian bot. Perhaps you'll be next you join your 400k dead comrades in Ukraine? Also, US weapons like HIMARs are impervious to jamming, as they also have inertial guidance.
1
as he said, the purpose of air power is to strike targets. Fighters, refuelers, transports, etc., all serve to support that mission, but they themselves are not the mission.
1
8:18 the First combat sortie of a P-51 was in Jan 1942 with the RAF (the Very first mission was a gorund attack mission inside Germany, the first time in WW2 any Allied fighters had entered German airspace). and the US was operating the P-51A and A-36 in North Africa in 1942. The first P-47 combat sortie was in Jan 1943.
1
same pilot in both aircraft. for example, you say an Me109 could possibly out turn a Spitfire in certain conditions, but ONLY if the spitfire pilot is of lesser skill. If it was teh same pilot and he had equal skill in both, the spitfire would out turn every time. That's how you OBJECTIVELY judge aircraft.
1
The P-39Q was great. The P-63 was better. But by then there were better airplanes already in service.
1
@lindycorgey2743 what could they have done to help, exactly? what pilots were rated to fly P-38? what role would they have performed? simply having something, doesn't automatically make it useful.
1
@SubParFlyFisher Many American pilots prefered the P-51 and A-36. The P-51 is objectively superior to the P-47 in nearly every way. The P-51: Has longer range. Uses less fuel and oil. Flies faster at all altitudes. Accelerates quicker. could takeoff from shorter airfields. Had a higher critical mach limit. was far cheaper to purchase and operate. required less raw material to manufacture. required less man hours to manufacture. required less maintenance between missions.was more maneuverable. was an excellent ground attack aircraft. Could carry the same amount of ordnance as the P-47 as a percentage of it's maximum takeoff weight. Was easier to train pilots on. Had a more ergonomic and efficient cockpit. .......... Unskilled pilots prefer the P-47. ignorant fanboys think it's superior. The P-47 was a one-trick pony. it only did one thing well. That was high altitude escort at 20k+ ft. Below 15k ft it was a dog and even the P-40 was faster and more maneuverable than a P-47 below 15k ft.
1
yes, I was going to comment the same thing. the first and last of both types were basically 100% clean sheet aircraft from their battle of Britain origins.
1
only the US has ever achieved air superiority, and not in all conflicts.
1
@hlynnkeith9334 US had air supremacy over northern Europe by D-Day, and over Iraq in 1991, and over Iraq and Afghanistan in 2001 and 2003. As well as during the Syrian Civil War. If the US joined in the Ukraine war for some reason, air supremacy would be achieved within about 2 weeks. Pearl Harbor was not air superiority, it was a surprise attack, but as time went on, more and more aircraft were getting airborne, and more and more AAA were coming online. Germany did not have air superiority over Norway, and Poland and Philippines don't count as a conquered territory isn't fighting back. and air superiority over russia never occurred. the Germans shot down a LOT of soviet planes, but the planes kept coming regardless.
1
often times claims can be inflated simply by multiple people claiming a single plane, thinking they had been the ones that hit it.
1
400-405mph at 10kff for the Mustang? are you on drugs? that is SLOW! in 1942 the P-51A was going 415mph at 5kft on only 1400hp, and this was at a time when US and British leaders confirmed in multiple test reports that their pilots were all pushing the Allisons of the P-40 and P-51 to 72-75" MAP, and allison tested this confirming they were getting 1800hp at those settings without damaging the engine. And Merlins were putting out as much as 1600-1700hp as well eventually. Combine that with airspeed advantages at higher altitudes and the Mustang was a fast airplane. in fact, the Allison mustangs were teh FASTEST single engine fighters in WW2 at low altitudes.
1
Britain was also allergic to turbocharged engines. Neutered the P-38 and then claimed it was a terrible plane. I don't get what their problem was, since the US would have supplied the parts.
1
@stephenpetermay1721 I had never heard that angle before. I'll have to look into it some more.
1
there is some great stuka cannon footage attacking T-34 online, scoring effective hits.
1
The myth of Allison engines having troubles at altitude is not justified. Yes, the P-38 had issues, but it was also related to teh Turbocharged system as best I can tell so far. Allisons without turbochargers had no such issues, and a proper 2-stage supercharger was never developed, despite both North American and Allison wanting it. Seems Rolls Royce padded some US pockets to prevent its development.
1
the problem with far too many 2-engine heavy "fighters" of WW2, is that they never designed them as pure fighters with only a single pilot. They most often go half way and decide to add a gunner/navigator/etc. which adds weight, drag, and degrades performance like top speed, range, or altitude. More of these heavy fighters could have been successful had they been designed more like the P-38 from the outset. and when you can't make up your mind what you want an aircraft to be, it will suck at everything rather than excel at something.
1
@soloqueuepixy Just enough thrust? care to share an example?
1
@soloqueuepixy How exactly does this explain your point or answer my question?
1
@soloqueuepixy How so? do you have an example of this? Is an F-16 a specialist at CAS? Is an F-14 a specialist at bombing? Is a C-130J a specialist at CAS? Is the F4U a specialist at dive bombing? Is the F6F a specialist radar night fighter? Is the F-4 a specialist Recon aircraft? Is the F-4 a specialist Fighter? is the F-4 a specialist at CAS? is the F-4 a specialist at strategic bombing? Or is the F-4 a purpose built Interceptor for defeating Russian bombers with missiles?
1
P-38 made its first flight only 3yrs after the Bf110, and well before US involvement in WW2. the P-38 is more so an early war US design like the F4F, P-40, and P-39, not a late war design like the P-51, F8F, F7F, etc. But you could argue it's a sort of mid war fighter, along with the F6F, P-47, and F4U.
1
12:42 ironically, for low altitude missions, the Mosquito would have been 600lb lighter and lower drag and higher HP had they installed Allison engines, and further creating parallel production.
1
@grizwoldphantasia5005 Yet the F4U became the US dive bomber by war's end regardless, as it performed the role well. "A-36 was such a poor investment that the US stopped buying them." this is a complete lie. "If you can expand dive bombers to include an unsuccessful minor leaguer and a fighter, I can extend it to guided missiles." you're an idiot. The P-51 and the F4U were the top 2 multirole single engine fighters of WW2. They did a lion's share of the work in WW2, and both continued on in use after the war because they were so good. I can't help but notice you have focuses solely on spinning lies about my picks, and criticizing the top 2 fighters of WW2, rather than defending your obsolete picks. Seems you have no argument that you can make to support them being the best.
1
@LucioFercho "was put in reserve for actual pinpoint work" and what pinpoint work did they do after that change was made? What targets did hey go after in Britain? "The Val was highly maneuverable and only suffered high losses when facing large numbers of fighters" not true at all. In most of the early carrier battles of WW2 (santa Cruz, Coral Sea, Midway...) the Vals were decimated. They were too vulnerable to not just fighters, but AAA. Sometimes they managed to attack without being intercepted and were still slaughtered anyways. The majority of Japanese success against US and other ships in WW2 came from a wide variety of aircraft, and the Vals were seen less and less as the war went on. The Vals did not get the job done. Many US ships were sunk by kamikazes and torpedoes. And Japan lost the war. Japanese aircraft didn't get it done. But if you want to continue to claim the Ju87 and Val were superior to the F4U and A-36, go ahead and keep trying.
1
@rdablock Yet the USAF just spent money upgrading all the A-10s, putting brand new wings on them, even had to retool some parts, and the USAF never had more than a handful of Tucanos, most of which now belong to the Taliban.
1
@CptFugu yes, helicopters do different missions. But I've also been in combat and had a Kiowa, 2 AH-64s and an A-10 taking turns making the same gun passes on the same group of taliban. A-10 was more effective. And in good weather, A-10 pilots can see targets on the ground with their own eyes too. The Kiowas with no sophisticated targeting, 50 cal and unguided rockets had to be guided on target by ground personnel that day too. Same with the Apaches. Troops in contact in a pitched fight, close quarters. Was a rough day for some of the guys. UH-60 dust off got shot full of holes too.
1
NATO would have attained air dominance in a matter of days to weeks. don't learn the wrong lessons due to ignorance.
1
you read a book, by a Spitfire pilot, who didn't survive the war? When did he find time to write the book?
1
@garymoore2535 I was 19 my first time in combat, in Iraq
1
@_Braised I get that, but the reason more countries are getting nukes is because that deterrent isn't really working anymore, since the world has pretty much made the use of nukes a crime against humanity. can't use it as a threat anymore, as use of one brings the rest of the world down upon you. Germany has the force of NATO behind it, and a LOT of nukes. adding their own changes Nothing. It just wastes their limited funding and resources that would be better spent on fighter jets and such.
1
@imperialinquisition6006 "In a nuclear war situation, if you are a player in the conflict, whether you have nuclear weapons or not, it is naive to believe they will not be used on you." so, you think we should give nukes to literally everyone, just becasue?
1
@Wuppie62 your comment lacks context.
1
@Wuppie62 I was unable to discern which comment of min you were responding to. Also, I never advocated the need to put nukes in Ukraine. This was a discussion about Germany, not Ukraine. Germany does not need to waste it's limited and precious resources on nukes. One, as you pointed out, NATO has nukes and will respond on Germany's behalf as appropriate and as required. Two, by the time Germany realized it was under rea life nuke attack, it would be too late to fire its own, as Germany is so close to Russia, thus again defeating the point of having nukes. Three, nukes are expensive to build, maintain, protect, etc. Funds which could be better spent on Europe's incredibly inadequate number of fighter jets, munitions, and other weapon systems.
1
@Wick9876 No, I am responding to his misunderstanding of the Original poster's comment, as you now are misunderstanding. "I mean once you're at the north pole, things, by definition, can only go south" you can only go south from the north pole. once south of the north pole, this no longer applies, as the statement only mentions when you're AT the north pole.... The utter lack of reading comprehension people have these days.....
1
meanwhile the british doggedly stuck with the .303
1
@patrickgriffitt6551 if an F-16 got beat by an F-4 in a dogfight, he should be embarrassed. The F-4 sucks big time to the F-16. That is like getting beat in an F-22 by a Mig29.
1
@bobsakamanos4469 awesome! do you know where I might b able to read more about this event? The P-40 is highly underrated and unjustly criticized. at low altitude it's better than people think. Th P-40 and P-51 are not that far apart in performance and good pilot can make all teh difference.
1
@bobsakamanos4469 the primary flaw of the P-40 is its aerodynamic inefficiencies. It was designed before the NACA studies on drag and such. but it was sturdy, a good plane, reasonably fast, not quite as durable as the P-47 but could take a lot of damage and survive, and when flown right was a capable fighter against Zeros and Bf109s. Below 15k ft it was even faster than a P-47, and could out maneuver the P-47 too. It could even out turn a Bf109 down low. And it was faster than the Zero and did well in boom and zoom tactics (which was standard US fighter doctrine, so it was designed to do that). "It was deleted. Very irritating when that happens." I know the feeling. It was a flawed fighter, but for a pre-war design it was very good and lasted the entire war and performed well overall.
1
@bobsakamanos4469 "Lots of on-line talk about allies overboosting the engines, but engine fires, and detonation was problematic. It wasn't til 1944 that Allison finally upgraded their intake manifold." I actually talked to some experts on this a few months ago. Guys who worked for Rolls Royce as ngineers and mechanics, worked on both the Allisons and Merlins, and are doing primarily Allison work exclusively now. They dispute that vehemently. They have access to original blueprints and engineering details on the Allison no one else has access too (and I was debating them as an engineer and pilot myself). When I brought up the intake, carb, etc. they said it wasn't true. Perhaps some people didn't set them up right or something sometimes, but they said there is no real problem with it. The Allison is a very durable engine (provided it didn't lose cooling), and they shared a LOT of interesting details why the Allison was the better engine that I never knew nor heard of before. they've been used and abused ever since WW2. We went over a lot of neat engineering data most non-engineers would not understand. Technically minded/skilled people would understand, but we really got into it with some aspects. had a great one-on-one 1.5hr discussion with them about it. I've also seen first hand accounts of people who fly warbirds today that say the P-40 is tough to beat at low altitude, and that for airshow work, teh P-40 is the most fun due to the allison engine being a beast at airshow altitudes.
1
@gagamba9198 "The only way it works is if the US fleet was underway and is sunk in deep water." completely wrong. It's far simpler and easier than that. I don't make plans around variables I can't control. "Does the war wrap up in August '45?" if Japan won at Pearl, then the US never enters the war in the Pacific at all, and would likely only fight Germany later. The bulk of your comment is pointless.
1
@gagamba9198 "It's politically untenable to FDR to sue for peace." given the way it happened, yes. but the way I would have done it, FDR would have had little choice. "How many ships did the US raise and repair? Even if all the aircraft carriers were there and damaged/destroyed, it shifts much of Atlantic fleet to California." you don't even know what my plan is. and everything you say here is 100% irrelevant. not one ship could be raised until peace was achieved if done my way. "That's Yorktown, Ranger, and Wasp. Hornet's shakedown is expedited." Ranger wasn't a proper carrier. Was, Hornet, and Yorktown were all sunk in the early battles of the pacific, without all the losses my plan would have caused. Also, you forgot Saratoga. But again, peace would be achieved before any ships could be repositioned from the Atlantic to the Pacific. "Is your gambit the oil tank farm? There's more than one way to skin a cat." Wow, you're such an amateur. Do you even know Anything about WW2 Naval history, anything about Naval warfare theories and doctrines?
1
@yourfriendlycazyneighborho5863 hindsight is a wonderful thing, and I also do know something about naval warfare the IJN never figured out during teh entirety of world war two that would have made all the difference. the best part is not one of you people even ever bother to ask what the plan is. you just lead with baseless attacks and criticism. and this is why I was so successful in actual combat as well. I was developing tactics that worked while guys in my unit criticized me rather than asking me how I was doing it. I kept getting results, they kept being resentful of my success. Pathetic
1
@martijn9568 nope, not forgetting, just not relevant.
1