Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Dark Skies" channel.

  1.  @grafixbyjorj  Pilots failed to use it properly, some even admitted it later. Early in the war pilots were still learning and aggressive. it took time to learn how to be patient and use boom and zoom tactics, wingman tactics, etc. Even the P-38 pilots suffered heavy losses early in its introduction until they learned how to use it properly.
    47
  2. "first fighter-bomber in the world" is a bold and likely false statement. Lots of fighters were fitted with all manner of ground attack weapons (guns, bombs, or rockets) long before the Typhoon started doing it.
    35
  3. Messerschmitt also interchangeably used both Me and Bf in their own testing documents, sometimes in the same report.
    29
  4. Best plane to never fight? HA!!! Never wise to make such bold statements, especially regarding dubious aircraft choices. Ta-152, DeHavilland Hornet, XF-107, F8U-3 Crusader II, YF-23, F-16XL, F-20, Avro Arrow, YF-12, and countless others deserve that title FAR more.
    18
  5. Ki-43 was inferior to the Zero, and yet the Zero fell victim to the F4F, Spitfire, P-38, F6F, F4U, and more in the South Pacific. And even late model P40N and P-39Q were a match for the zero.
    14
  6.  @johnhenryholiday3845  this is a side effect of gov, not capitalism. Overregulation is actually anti-capitalist (mind you i said Over-regulation, not All regulation). But All forms of gov cause the same overbearing regulatory side effects.
    13
  7. The FW190 was introduced in 1941, and was initially countered by the Spitfire Mk8 and Mk9.
    13
  8.  @BeardedFrog  militarily we could have won any time we wanted, even in the first year of war. But the war was a political football, the politicians never intended to win it.
    12
  9. the Italian P.108 looked incredibly like the B-17 as well. Just coincidence, but really neat to compare.
    11
  10.  @kennethcurtis1856  he does this crap in most of his videos. you'd think he'd learn by now.
    11
  11. had the Hawker Typhoon never existed, WW2 would have played out exactly the same, and no one would even notice the absence of the Typhoon. Heck, aside from a few minor accomplishments that were actually trivial in the grand scheme of things, I can hardly find any evidence of truly meaningful impact on the course or outcome of the war.
    10
  12. but 15yrs was a long time for aircraft in the 1940s to 1970s. Some aircraft were lucky to remain in service for 5yrs.
    7
  13. the doors could be jettisoned to bailout, or if a crash landing was anticipated.
    7
  14. I think it was in an episode of Dogfights
    7
  15.  @flarvin8945  Agreed. In hindsight that was the right thing to do. But the US had its hands full trying to manage so much of the globe post-WW2 (also why the Korean war happened)y, and the last thing the gov wanted to do was get into a fight with one of our oldest allies, the French, in the midst of it all.
    7
  16.  @flarvin8945  We actually know in hindsight that China wasn't prepared to back Vietnam if we decided to invade the North. Had Kennedy not been killed, the US never would have gotten involved. It was all Johnson's doing, for political gain. The US should have supported Vietnam's independence all along for sure, easy to judge in hindsight though.
    7
  17. any proper aviation fanatic is annoyed when people use photos and video of the wrong aircraft. There is no excuse for it these days given how easy it is to search this stuff.
    6
  18. why do you keep showing footage of the Sea Dart?
    6
  19.  @markpaul8178  Most ground striker aircraft can out turn fighters, due to their higher wing lift. Slower speed and high lift wings help in this regard. But a smart fighter pilot would not try to turn with them and instead use their speed advantage. But other factors like energy retention, acceleration, roll rate, etc. also play a role in deciding a fight. But even SPADs and F4U have taught MIG jets a lesson in this, when pilots think strikers are easy prey and get cocky, they can be beaten by a good pilot.
    6
  20.  @Hebdomad7  I think you need to study more history regarding the plans the US had for defeating North Vietnam, and perspectives of those from North Vietnam at the time.
    6
  21.  @daftbence  Even if you remove the German inspired projects from the list, the US still produced a ridiculously large number of experimental designs compared to any other nation.
    6
  22. and he used a bunch of Sea Dart footage. I was better at airplane identification as a child.
    6
  23. P-39 had a hub cannon too
    6
  24. and existing US designs were already far superior to it, such as the F4U and P-51. speed was more important than maneuver, and even the late war P-40s could go over 400mph.
    5
  25.  @BobSmith-uw9ht  there were some variations, but certain pictures show many features to be strikingly similar to the B-17, more so than the Pe-8. It's not a copy, just has visually similar features and layout.
    4
  26.  @senseofthecommonman  Had the Typhoon not existed, other aircraft would have been mass produced even more so than the troublesome and maintenance intensive Typhoon, that would have destroyed those trains and such instead. Therefore, no meaningful difference would have occurred. The Typhoon did a job, that other planes could also have done had the Typhoon not been an option. All the manufacturing and maintenance resources for the Typhoons would have gone into other airframes doing that same job. And being a combat vet who has received air support from many types (A-10, F-18, AV-8B, B-1, AH-64, OH-58, AH-1, AC-130, MQ-1...). I don't care which aircraft puts ordnance on target, just so long as someone does it. I don't get personally attached to the aircraft, only the results. The Typhoons consumed a lot of resources in terms of material, engineering, maintenance, time, etc, that could have gone into less troublesome airframes.
    4
  27. the top Japanese aces also respected the F4F in a fight
    4
  28. My first airplane models were the Revell F-4 phantom and B-17 Memphis Belle
    4
  29. 2500hp is nowhere near double of any other engine of it's time. Merlin started at 1300hp years earlier and increased to about 1700 by wars end. Griffon started at 1700hp a year after Saber. R-2800 Double Wasp started at 1500hp and was doing 2000+hp by 1941. BMW 801 started at 1500hp and was doing 2300hp by war's end. Allisons were doing 1000hp almost a decade before the Saber, doing about 1500hp by 1940, and ended the war putting out over 1800hp (P-38 and P-40 models), and racing engines after the war achieving 3,200hp.
    4
  30. and the P-39 achieved favorable kill ratio against Japanese fighters in the South Pacific in the early years.
    4
  31.  @worldtraveler930  yup, and the P-39 remained in USSR service into the 1950s, even during the Korean war. The P-39Q was superior to the A6M zero in every way but range and maneuverability (same for the P-47, F4U, P-51, F6F, P-38, etc.)
    4
  32. Don't forget the Hawker Hart bomber that forced fighter design to switch from maneuverability to speed. Thus resulting in the Hawker Demon and Hawker Fury fighters, the direct descendants of the Hurricane. Hart -> Demon -> Fury -> Hurricane -> Tornado -> Typhoon -> Tempest -> Tempest II -> Sea Fury
    4
  33. it's fabric tail was easy to repair quickly, and was known to survive cannon hits, the explosions merely tearing of the fabric skin, but not compromising the structural integrity of the frame.
    4
  34. tailless designs have been flown successfully, even with mechanical controls only, since before WW2.
    4
  35.  @Zankaroo  the pilots did fail, as they also failed with the P-38 initially. But yes, the ultimate failure was that of the gov/military officials. But just like the P-38, P-51, F4U, Spitfire, and others, once teh bugs got worked out it turned into a capable plane that could fight a Zero and win. Pilots wanted to turn fight and be aggressive, and they had to be taught to be more patient and use boom and zoom and wingman tactics to win (true for all of the best US fighters including the P-51, F4U, P-47, etc.). The age of pure maneuvering to win dogfights died in the 1930s, and the new pilots had to be taught that.
    3
  36. Wrong. the Allison mustans were amazing. they were designed to be low altitude fighters, and did well in that role.
    3
  37.  @konstruct11  the F4F was also upgraded throughout the war as well, and saw plenty of action right up to the end. But even without upgrades, and facing the best and most experienced Japanese pilots, the US pilots flying F4F scored more kills than they lost. In the most favorable conditions of WW2, the F4F still scored better than the Zero.
    3
  38.  @tarasbulba3190  No, it is a "name" from my past.
    3
  39. and achieved a favorable kill ratio over Japanese fighters
    3
  40.  @kirkmorrison6131  the P-39, P-40, P-38, and all other US and Western fighters in WW2 were designed as Boom and Zoom fighters, where speed is more important than maneuverability. Japan didn't get the memo in the 1930s and continued to focus on Turn and Burn fighters, which was a mistake. Late in WW2 and into the Cold War interceptors and climb rate became critical in addition to speed. This meant that the P-40, P-39, P-38 and more were faster than the Zero, Ki43... but less maneuverable, and comparable or worse climb rates. But the late war P-39Q and P-40N were very well matched to the Zero in all but range and maneuverability. The P-39 and P-40 had as good or better service ceilings, better speed, tougher, self sealing fuel tanks, and relied upon diving attacks and wingman tactics. this proved to be the superior form of dogfighting, and the standard practice for ALL US fighter pilots. The average US pilot was also better trained, whereas the Japanese had a very small pilot pool, and put ALL of their top pilots in one single unit. The F4F was also well balanced against the Zero. And the Spitfire was basically equal to the Zero in every way except range. Early dogfights in the Pacific, starting on Dec 7, 1941, and going into 1943, US pilots were initially caught off guard by surprise, and werent aware of the Zero prior to Pearl Harbor. After Dec 7 piltos wanted revenge and were too aggressive and wanted to turn fight. It took time to get them to stay disciplined and stick to Boom and Zoom that their airplanes were designed for. Boom and Zoom fighting requires much more patience and discipline, and even online gamers are overall terrible at Boom and Zoom becasue they are too eager and aggressive. But most of the top aces were Boom and Zoom pilots (Red Baron, Eric Hartmann, Richard Bong, Rickenbacker, and many others.). Pilots like Hans Marseille, Werner Voss, and Saburo Sakai were Turn and Burn pilots, using superior piloting to outmaneuver their opponents. Something to keep in mid, while the P-39 and P-40 werent as good against Japanese planes in maneuverability, they could both outmaneuver a Bf109, and the P-40 was superior to the P-47 in every way below 15k ft other than range and firepower. The P-40 was faster, accelerated quicker, was more maneuverable, was equally as tough taking punishment and still flying home, used in ground attack roles, was an excellent diving airplane, etc. than the P-47.
    3
  41. Underpowered? the Allison engine was putting out 2200hp by war's nd, and was lighter than the Merlin. It is a beast of an inline engine. They put the Merlin in it and the P-40 performed no better, and they put the Allisons back in it.
    3
  42. and also produces more drag, making it slower.
    3
  43.  @Cuccos19  Slower, shorter range, parity on maneuverability (but pure maneuverability was not critical for winning dogfights). In what way was it Better? The Ki-43 didn't shock the world, but the Zero did. P-40s had an easier time with the Ki-43 for example.
    3
  44.  @apis_aculei  F4F finished WW2 7:1 against the zero, and even the Zero pilots themselves respected the F4F in a dogfight in the early South Pacific campaigns. Speed, firepower, and wingman tactics are superior to what the Zero brought to the table. Agility ceased being important the day the Hawker Hart entered service with the RAF. But Japan's Samurai mindset refused to accept this reality. It's just like how in a dogfight between a P-40 and a P-47, the P-40 pilot can't lose. You could replace the P-40 with an F6F, and F4U, etc, and the P-47 would still lose. Because while the P-47 is the superior fighter at high altitude, it can't kill the other planes unless it comes down to their altitude. And at those lower altitudes the P-47 can't defeat any of those airplanes in an even fight. This played out for real in state-side bar bets, where pilots of different types and branches of the military would dogfight 1-vs-1 to settle bets. the P-47s always lost, because their opponent would just keep the dogfight at low altitude where their airplanes were faster and more maneuverable than the P-47. What good is maneuverability if you can't catch your target? what good is maneuverability if you can't run away from your attacker? P-38s exemplified this. Zeros were at the mercy of US P-38s once the US pilots learned to stick with boom and zoom tactics. Speed controls the engagement in a dogfight, not maneuverability. And in real life combat, dogfighting is a team sport. And setting up your pilots to fight 1-vs-1 fights in a fight where your opponent is using team tactics, even if you brought the same number of airplanes to the fight as your opponent, is a guaranteed loss for you. War isn't fair, and when you lose in combat you don't get to claim it wasn't fair. Either you use what you have and you win, or you die.
    3
  45.  @TorontoJediMaster  Allied pilots were also more likely to be picked up over the channel I believe as well.
    3
  46. was it faster than the Mosquito? or the Typhoon? or the P-47?
    2
  47.  @ohger1  Yes, well said. And the Allisons with turbos at high altitude even outperformed the Merlins (P-38). Merlin/supercharger equipped P-38s would have performed worse than Allison/turbo P-38s. the Allison just never got a proper supercharger induction system developed for it that could be installed in standard fighters.
    2
  48.  @ricardobeltranmonribot3182  But the F8F, Sea Fury, P-51, P-38, etc. were/are used as racing planes. People claim the P-47 was faster and such. But if that were true they'd have used them as air racers. Fact is, the P-47 sucked terribly below 15k ft. A-36 was considered superior to the P-47 as a ground attacker. Faster and more maneuverable down low too. Also, Mustangs were sometimes equipped with 4x cannons which are better than 8x .50cal. But you can't compare a late war P-47 model to early war Planes. You need to compare them to other late war models, like the Ta-152, Spiteful, MB5, etc. Since the P-47N made as much contribution to the war as the P-80. You have to compare what was available in the period in question, not hypothetical scenarios about what would have happened had Germany held on for a few years longer. The P-47N was only used in the Pacific, and P-47s sucked in the pacific due to their inadequate low altitude performance. The Mustangs did the job faster, easier, cheaper, with less maintenance, and for much lower cost. And Mustangs also required less training and were more comfortable to pilots on long missions.
    2
  49. The F-107 was Not the first aircraft to go supersonic in level flight. the F-100 was the first Production aircraft to do that.
    2
  50. short range, poor climb, poor altitude performance, low quality production, high casualties, useless cannon, failed to sweep the skies of Ju-87 as the Western Allies had starting in 1940.
    2