Comments by "Big Blue" (@bigblue6917) on "Not A Pound For Air To Ground" channel.

  1. It certainly is an interesting period in aviation history. The biplane reached its peak in the 30s but was already being superseded by the piston engined monoplane. And just as it reached its peak in the mid 1940s it was quickly bypassed by the jet. The change was so quick that Gloster's went from the Gladiator to the Meteor.
    44
  2. To convince NATO they could carry more than eight aircraft the Russians would change the numbers on the aircraft each night. So that NATO would be convinced the carrier had more aircraft than it really had. The Royal Navy actually saved the life of one the Forgers pilots. HMS Coventry was shadowing one of the carriers when a Forger flew passed while coming in to land. Just at that moment the Forger got into difficulty and the pilot had to eject. As he hit the water he became tangled up in his chute and was in danger of drowning. The Coventry sent out a boat to rescue him as they were much closer than the carriers escort and then took him to the Russians. As the boats crew was not sure of their reception this could have left them feeling somewhat nervous but all went well and the boat returned to the Coventry. If the Buccaneer had attacked the carriers the first they would have known was when the missiles hit them
    32
  3. The German Starfighter pilot was lucky as the original version had a downward firing ejector seat.
    26
  4. The fact that back before WW2 they looked at making a flying tank really should have warned us about this.
    19
  5. It's amazing how many things started by two or three men in a shed.
    12
  6. I love the idea of the test pilot coming up with the solution to dropping the landing speed. I cannot imagine the same happening today.
    8
  7. True. Pity that fact was missed in the video
    8
  8. A nice rolling sea swell just for that added interest.
    7
  9. I remember watching film footage in the 1970's of Soviet fighters simultaneously firing a heatseeking and radar guided missile at a target. The claim for doing this was that the NATO pilot would not be able to deal with both at the same time. What I did notice was how often the second missile shot across in front of the fighter as it locked onto the first missile before acquiring the target. Must have been a few nervous moments for the pilot when he pressed the fire button.
    7
  10. That sounds like a video in itself. I hope we get to see it
    7
  11. Thanks for the video. This is another one on my list of aircraft I'd like to know more about I can tick off.
    4
  12. Sounds human.
    4
  13. I remember reading that the senior officers at this time were mostly ex-bomber crew which was one of the reasons the USAF became fixated with using missiles to bring down aircraft rather than guns. Not being experienced fighter pilots they did not think guns were needed any more.
    4
  14. They always made me think of those old Sci Fi magazine illustrations.
    3
  15. One navy pilot who flew the Cutlass got a place with the Blue Angels display team. At the first meeting where he was told he had a place with the team he asked what aircraft they would be flying. On being told it was the Cutlass he promptly resigned, got up and walked out.
    2
  16.  @craigwall9536  So instead of just trying to enlighten me you decided to be abusive. I suppose you think that makes a big man by doing that but truth is is just make you small and petty
    2
  17. Well if the US goes to war with North Korea they may have to dust off all of that research as the North Koreans still flies many MiG-17s
    1
  18. I do know about these vehicles but but it was nothing more that a photograph and a line or two. So it is nice to get a fuller picture. The French had trials with an aero car during WW1 which was a car with and aircraft engine and propeller at the back. For some reason they thought they could cross the battlefield better than a standard armoured car.
    1
  19. Definitely one of the better aircraft channels on YouTube
    1
  20. I fully agree with you on that.
    1