Comments by "Neil of Longbeck" (@neiloflongbeck5705) on "Ed Nash's Military Matters" channel.

  1.  @dallesamllhals9161  ah insults, the refuge of idiots who can't find a counter argument and know that they have been in the wrong the whole time.
    1
  2.  @esajuhanirintamaki965  even at the tinder ut was clear from the actions the Finns took they were only out to get back what they had lost in the Winter War.
    1
  3. I wonder just how long today's carbon fibre aircaft would survive if parked outside?
    1
  4. @infidel6728  does it rain much there? I remember reading that rain had badly affected the skins on F-22s which had been parked outside.
    1
  5. As everybody who watch YT know only the Hortens did flying wings..... Another nail in the coffin of that myth.
    1
  6.  @bazza945  his aircraft flew for longer and did more flights before beinh written off. His aircraft weren't always pretty.
    1
  7.  @mattheweagles5123  no, that was the town after which Sir Athur took his title.
    1
  8.  @mattheweagles5123  Canberra is not an English town or city but we named a bomber after it. PS before being made a Duke he was made the Baron Duoro and the Viscount Wellington in Augusr 1809, then in February 1812 he was made the Earl of Wellington and in August the Marquess of Wellington. It wasn't until May 1814 that he became the Duke of Wellington, and on the same day the Marquess of Duoro. However, before all of that he was a younger son of an Earl and so Sir would have been appropriate upto the point he was made an Earl.
    1
  9. Sounds like Mary-land to me. And I'm English. Remember we have over 400 different regional accents.
    1
  10.  @robertmoffett3486  it's sent in Kent, not the Fens (Lincolnshire/Norfolk bordering the Wash).
    1
  11.  @apis_aculei  except in the Pfeil it had a nasty habit of not being able to be operated as the canopy fe Ease had ripped the pilot's hands off.
    1
  12. What about the shelling of Hartlepool, Whitby and Scarborough on 14th December 1914? Ooops!
    1
  13. IIRC The fuselage was so narrow that engine gauges were put on the fuselage side of the nacelles.
    1
  14. The same can be said about domd of the products of every nation's aircraft designers.
    1
  15. ​ @Philistine47  the Mk1 had only 2x.50 cal guns and 4x.303 guns.
    1
  16.  @AudieHolland  that's only true for the northern part of the city, in the southern part, already captured by the Germans, the red abort flares were fired. The city had not surrendered at this point as negotiations were still on going. The 36 bombers attacking from the south saw these flares and the 54 attacking from a northerly direction never saw any flares due to low cloud. The city surrendered shortly after the bombing.
    1
  17.  @AudieHolland  that's not what any history book I've ever seen says. They all say the surrender happened after the bombing.
    1
  18.  @AudieHolland  bombing of Rotterdam around 13:20. 16:50 Winkelman orders the surrender. This is not the order you are trying and failing to suggest.
    1
  19. Good one, but how many takes?
    1
  20.  @Simon_Nonymous  see Lindybiege's video.
    1
  21. Along side asa medium bomber.
    1
  22. As these aircraft have top speeds at different altitudes then this exercise has no value as you are comparing chalk and cheese.
    1
  23.  @watcherzero5256  but those maximum speeds cannot be compared to each other because they are all dependent on the specific airframe and engine combinations. The Tornado F.3 was faster then the F-15. But only at low level. Does this mean the Tornado was the better aircraft, ir just the better aircraft in that flight regime?
    1
  24.  @watcherzero5256  exactly, why this kind of analysis is pointless..
    1
  25. Wouldn't that make it a bi-sesquiplane?
    1
  26. There will always be another fighter or bomber aircraft that will get the restoration funding before this beast. Transport aircraft just ain't sexy.
    1
  27. No, not asymmetry. From the front it has reflection symmetry in the vertical plane along the centre line.
    1
  28.  @ian_b  if you only consider the nacelles then, yes there is no symmetry there. But most of the time we look at the airframe as a whole.
    1
  29. @anthonylewis679  just like with tanks, the word medium shifts about a bit with no clear definition. When it comes to bombers, the Lancaster is a heavy bomber, but so is the B-17, but the specification that led to the Lancaster was for a medium bomber.
    1
  30. The Americans provided most of the money NATO spent on V/STOL programmes like the Harrier.
    1
  31. YT moves in a mysterious way its wonders to achieve.
    1
  32. Err, the spending on the Wehrmacht was started before the Nazis came to power.
    1
  33. You should have seen the bomber aircraft that didn't get off the drawing board. Such as the Vickers Long Range High Altitude bomber which had been designed to carry Tall Boy and Grand Slam bombs at a time when it was though no conventional bomber could carry them. It was intended to have a take-off weight of 104,000lb (with only one bomb) and cruise at 40,000ft at a speed of 306moh on the outward run and 350mph on the return leg and have an radius of action of 1,800 miles. The carriage of a single large bomb on general bombing sorties was one reason why this design got no further than the drawing board, but it did lead in late 1941 to an Air Ministry draft operational requirement for a longer with at least a 15ton bomb load (and preferably 20tobs) with an operational range of 2,500 miles at a cruise speed of 300mph at 20,000ft but with the capability of flying at 30,000ft. This became known as the 75ton bomber
    1
  34. You can blame the Cold War for the lack of awareness of the WW2 era Soviet aircraft.
    1
  35.  @emergencylowmaneuvering7350 I did say influence?. The Saab 91 had a pusher engine and twin fins. Geese.... Burt Rutan was influenced in his designs.
    1
  36.  @Tetemovies4  the Yak-38 didn't land on conventional carriers. The Kiev class carriers had no catapults or arrester gear, unlike the French carriers. The Yak-38 was a v/stol aircraft which needed to lift engines to allow it to fly vertically. If either lift engine failed then it took up the flight characteristics of a breeze block, just like F-35 would. This makes you analogy pointless. Doubling the number of engines whilst doubling the number of potential causes of failure doesn't increase the chances of total engine failure by double. There are very few occurrences of multiple engine failure and those are either caused by an external factor, such as volcanic ash, or non-engine related, such as ice in the fuel or running out of fuel. The chance of each engine failing remains the same and that means the chances of a double failure engine failure solely to mechanical failures is approximately half that of a single engine failure due to the way the maths work.
    1
  37.  @Tetemovies4  don't be stupid. The Jaguar had 2 thrust engines whilst the Yak-38 only had one. You are comparing apples with granite. As your 100 engine aircraft then it depends on the use the engine is being put to. If the engine is a lift engine then it is conceivable that a single failure could result in a crash in a vertical landing.unlikely but possible. The shaft driven lift fan is useless if the engine it is attached to fails and is little better than the lift engines fitted to the Yak-38. If either gear box fails if can only land I the conventional manner.
    1
  38.  @Tetemovies4  then why bring up the V/STOL Yak-38 and its problems, which according to the Aviaton Safrty Network were primarily due to the failure of a single lift engine during either take-off, landing or hovering during an airshow. That ONE engine out of THREE and always one of the lift engines. A lifting jet engine is identical to a thrust engine except for the direction the jet exhaust is pointing. Your 100 engine aircraft is nonsensical. The problem that the Mk101 engines of the earlier Jaguar had was it went from 100% dry thrust to afterburner. This was changed for the Mk102 engines to have the afferburners come on at IIRC 80% dry thrust.
    1
  39.  @Tetemovies4  and by your illogical push of the idea of redundancy it makes it nonsensical. As for the engine issue on the Jaguar, that was solved long before the decision was made to buy the Super Etandard. The single-engine handling was also addressed. BUT the question still remains why did you chose to base your argument on the Yak-38 when it can quite easily be dismissed?
    1
  40.  @Tetemovies4  more word salad.
    1
  41.  @Tetemovies4 having 2 engines in the Jaguer makes them functionally redundant you muppet that's what redundancy means. The engine upgrades made them work better by smoothing out the thrust characteristics and had no impact on their redundancy, which was already assured by have 2. The Yak-38 needed a pair of lift engines as the Soviet Union, and all other nations to be fair, could not make a small enough engine with the required levels of thrust. The French with their Mirage III-V needed 8 lift engines, plus a thrust engine. Now, there's redundancy. Although a better western equivalent of the Yak-38 I'd the VFW VAK 191B with 2 lift engines and a thrust vectoring main engine (sound familiar because that's what the Yak-38 had). Again it had 2 lift engines because Rolls Royce couldn't make a turbojet any shorter and jet the required thrust. However, this aircraft remained a technology demonstrator. Nut it did have design advantage over the Yak-38 as the lift engines were placed at each end of the fuselage and were powerful enough to be landed on alone if needed or by using the main engine's vectored thrust. A very Germanic concept of redundancy.
    1
  42.  @Tetemovies4  but it could still fly to an airfield on land if within range AND that makes it functionally and physically redundant because it could continue to fly. Your argument is spurious and facile. Just because this aircraft or that aircraft in a prototype form couldn't achieve one specific aspect doesn't mean that it could never do that with improvements, which is what prototypes are for. Improvements that, in the Jaguar M's case were not long in arriving, but arrived too late for that version of the Jaguar. At least the Jaguar M had the option to return to a land base on a single engine, whatbhope did the Super Etandard pilot have with a single engine failure? All he could do was hope that his ejection seat functioned as promised, his dinghy inflated and the rescue helicopter wasn't too long in getting to him. He had no redundancy at all.
    1
  43.  @Tetemovies4  prototype testing. You just don't get it do you? As explained earlier the issues foundvduringnthe testing were all resolved. Unlike the major flaw with the Super Etendard. it Plus have you never heard of air to air refuelling. The French Navy had. But if the Jaguar M had gone into service the engine and engine out issues would have already been resolved. But you don't seem capable of getting that into your head.
    1
  44.  @Tetemovies4  well as stated earlier the issue with the response to the throttle input was solved with the afferburners coming in earlier than originally intended. This is well know and resulted in the Adour Mk101 becoming the Adour Mk102. Also who said the Jaguar would be refuelling other aircraft, stop making piss-poor assumptions as they keep making an ass of you. I also never said anything about the wing loading being suitable, so stop shifting the goal posts. Well let's see, the F-4 Phantom had a wing loading of 567kg/m^2 against the Jaguars 649.3 kg/m^2. So a bit more, but not excessively so. But also a meaningless comparison.
    1
  45.  @nigelsmith7366  I was commenting on what was said, notvrepeating it.
    1
  46. Some piss poor research or script writing here within the 1st minute. The Americans weren't the first to fly heavier than air vehicles that was the French. They were the first to fly a fully controllable powered aircraft capable of sustained flight rather than the fully controllable weight shift gliders that had been in the air for over a decade at that point. The first glider flight was over 100 years earlier in 1801 when André Gbuillaume Resnier de Goué managed a 300m straight line glide at Angoulême sustaining a broken leg on landing. By the time the Wrights got involved in aviation men like Otto Lilienthal could control the direction of their gliders by shifting their weight. Others who flew heavier than air craft before the Wrights include Octave Chanute, Percy Pilcher and Lawrence Hargrave who invented the box kite. All the Wrights did was to solve the inconsistencies in the aerofoil data (for their heavier than air gliders), create a engine powerful enough to get them off the ground and a practical propeller and put all of them together and take flight. BUT THEY WERE NEVER THE FIRST TO FLY A HEAVIER THAN AIR CRAFT.
    1
  47.  @mikearmstrong8483  and I'm agreeing with your comment.
    1
  48. Between 1924 and 1939 the FAA was part of the RAF and not the Royal Navy. The Navy didn't get effective control of the FAA until mid-August 1939.
    1
  49. @chrishartley4553  that was part of the joke. I'd explain it, but like the new roof, it would go over your head.
    1
  50. Elbonia was created by Scott Adams in his Dilbert cartoons.
    1