Comments by "Caseytify" (@Caseytify) on "Ed Nash's Military Matters" channel.

  1. I yield to no one in my love for the F-104, the "missile with a man in it," but I also know it had limited range, had many coffin corners to learn about, and ultimately a poor all-weather aircraft. The German Air Force, at least, had a terrible safety record with the Starfighter. Both the 104 and the 100 were comparatively dangerous machines to learn how to fly. The Super Tiger was safer, more reliable, and just as fast. Again, I love Lockheed, but bribery seems to have played a very large role.
    48
  2. The Superfortress project was one of the few examples where the power plant gave the production staff fits for a very long time.
    47
  3. The 24 could carry more, and had longer range, but it wasn't superior to the 17. The Liberator took a lot more effort to fly in formation compared to the Fortress (apparently the twin tail had something to do with that) and the Forts could take far more battle damage. To my mind this is like arguing if the P-51 was better than the P-47. They were different designs with different strengths & weaknesses. Both served very well in many theaters.
    18
  4. Hogs are great, as long as they have a permissive environment. That's the whole point.
    10
  5. The difference is that the war in Ukraine is the result of foreign aggression, where the conflict in Burma is not. This may seem nit picky, but that's the truth. One could argue that the no fly zones grew out of the need to enforce peace terms on Hussein, which was also the result of foreign aggression. The US has been the world's policeman for over 70 years. Perhaps it's time for Europe to carry their own weight, instead of allowing the US to do all the dirty work.
    8
  6. A valid point.
    8
  7.  @jptata3161  supposedly Seversky commented that the P-47 would be a dinosaur, but a dinosaur with elegant proportions. 😏 Truly the Cadillac of fighters.
    6
  8.  @sisyphusvasilias3943  Because helping Ukraine defend itself is just silly... Support Ukraine & clamp down, hard, on Russian economy with sanctions. Also keep an eye out for EU companies who have, ah, "unwritten" agreements with Russia, under the table.
    5
  9. Except instead of three new airframes, we have one (the F-35) proving problematic in certain versions. We need aircraft added to the fleet to maintain numbers. If my understanding is correct, the F-15x is oriented towards new air frames.
    4
  10. Next time factor in inflation. 😏
    4
  11. This is parallel in certain ways to the Buffalo's story. Most air forces considered it a dog, but the Finns loved the tubby little bastiche. Apparently it had terrific cold weather performance.
    4
  12.  @KB4QAA  Not unlike the situation with the P-38.
    4
  13.  @Easy-Eight  I was surprised to find out the F-86 started out life as the F3 Fury.
    4
  14. Yes, an obsolete by 1940s design would have changed history, if mass produced.😜
    4
  15. Another reason why the topic is really arguing about angels on pin heads. By 1945, jet fighters made the argument pointless.
    4
  16. Except the Fw 190 had excellent high altitude performance as well, and was recognized as one of the best piston engined fighters of the war. The Marut, not so much.
    4
  17. That front gear was crazy complex. Compare to the main gear on a B-17 or front gear on an A-20.
    4
  18.  @andysweetland8645  I had no problems understanding what he said at all.
    4
  19.  @icewaterslim7260  The cheapness came from conscious design. Up until then a run of 200 was considered large. The Mustang was deliberately designed to be mass produced. That was one of the prime factors in selecting it as the primary escort fighter of the AAF. But, yes, the Jug is the way to go, although I have a crush on the Lightning. The later L models were incredible.
    3
  20. Looking forward to more detail on the F2F & F3F, especially the latter.
    3
  21.  @JustMe-g3e  Everybody has a favorite... 😆
    3
  22. Recall that effective resource management was one of the key reasons the Allies (and especially the US) had such great performance logistically. One good example is the prohibition of metal group insignia. The US saved several tons of paint & metal from that alone. In this case they had to allocate scarce resources for best results. The engines went to designs already in production and service. That's also why the Spitfire & 109 were in production the entire war. It was less about "control" than logistical efficiency.
    3
  23. Two key missions, well accomplished.
    3
  24. Look up the specs for the B-10, first flown in 1932. Also note the B-17 first flew in 1935. This design was horribly out of date compared to American & British designs of the time.
    3
  25.  @danieldickson4656  So the only example you have comes from 60 years ago. Marvelous.
    3
  26.  @petersouthernboy6327 And wrt convoys there weren't enough US Navy ships in existence, especially escort craft, thanks to the austere pre-war budgets.
    3
  27. For all the concern shown for agile fighters, US designs have historically been less maneuverable than their opponents, yet the Navy/USAF have been victorious in every war since WW2.
    3
  28. The B-29 cost more than the Manhatten Project. I doubt Germany could afford it.
    2
  29. At this point Russia must be thinking grim thoughts about why it was called the Warsaw Pact...
    2
  30. The design also resulted in an insane combat range for the A6M.
    2
  31. Naaah; Lightning had twin engines in the booms. This reminds me of the O-2 Skymaster.
    2
  32. Any radial, really. The US Navy went all radial in the 20s. Same for USAAF bombers. Eventually the last generation fighters were all radial as well. There were a few exceptions such as the Spit, but Britain couldn't afford the disruption converting to a new design. The Fw 190 and the Ta 152. All the later British designs were radial, such as the Fury. The USAAF stayed with the Mustang, but as has been pointed out, it enjoyed a massive advantage in cost of manufacture. I cite the P-61 Black Widow in evidence. Big, fast, and maneuverable.
    2
  33. Bwaaaaahahaha! Both Putin & Kim have been rattling sabers for years, causing weak bladders to void on a regular basis. 😂😂
    2
  34. Going by looks, I am reminded of Convair's Delta Dagger/Dart.
    2
  35. Call me when Russia has more than a dozen craft flying with actual squadrons, not smoke & mirrors. The J-20 is more problematic.
    2
  36. Compare to American bomber & attack designs of the same period.
    2
  37.  @jameswebb4593  Why was the Mustang the last in-line engine design used by the air force? Why did all American bomber designs from 1930 on feature radial engines? 🤫
    2
  38. Not only was the Mustang around in larger numbers, after WW2 it was kept around in large numbers as the F-51, while the P-47 was eliminated. The Corsair was a Navy plane also built in fewer numbers. That's why the Enforcer came about; there were just that many surplus Mustangs around in the 60s. They're still the most numerous flying iron bird today.
    2
  39. That was actually a 1930s design? Yoicks!
    2
  40. No, their mistake was not contracting for a decent engine from the beginning.
    2
  41.  @alan6832  Good question. Did the B-10 do much anti-sub work? Didn't the B-18 do the same?
    2
  42. I've seen that claim made for the Wildcat and the Lightning as well. It seems to be a very popular claim.
    2
  43. Ask the Israelis; they seem quite happy with their Lightnings.
    2
  44. The intro was perfect! ... Can someone explain to me the British obsession with .303 I'm machine guns on airplanes? The .50 caliber was far superior in every respect, and the obvious choice until 20 mm cannons became common.
    2
  45.  @englishpassport6590  Where did you get this crap from? The Lightning wasn't a "disaster," although I will admit the never put a decent heater in the plane. Odd omission for a high altitude interceptor. Compressibility was an issue, but was solved by the J model. It certainly didn't "finish" the plane. The Mustang didn't have superior performance, but it was cheaper to build & maintain than the Lighting. In fact the Mustang was designed with mass production in mind, whereas Lockheed was told the total number of P-38s needed was barely in three figures. In other words mass production wasn't on the to do list. There was also the fact that the USAAF had a terrible twin engine training program. For a long time Lightning pilots received very poor twin engine training. Note the P-38 was very popular in the Pacific, where its long range and twin engines were beneficial. Also note that the top two scoring American aces of WW2 both flew the "horrible" Lightning. Hmmm...
    2
  46. The historical record shows most USAF fighters to be less maneuverable than their opponents, but that never stopped the Air Force from obtaining air supremacy in every conflict. The only exception was Vietnam, where American aviators were under severe political & doctrinal restraint. In your example the F-22 and F-35 could simply employ zoom & boom tactics. Recall that biplanes were more maneuverable than monoplanes; that didn't prevent them from getting chewed up by their less maneuverable opponents.
    2
  47.  @donjones4719  The bloody engines were the worst problem, although the use of magnesium to save weight wasn't a good choice either.
    2
  48. Amazing how so many people know so little about what actually happened at Munich...
    2
  49. Please also note that Japanese designers favored agility over several other factors.
    2
  50. If you're facing an opponent who heavily relies on water traffic, as did Japan. Germany, not so much. They mostly relied on their rail system.
    2