Comments by "Gort" (@gort8203) on "Not A Pound For Air To Ground" channel.

  1. The MiGs were not smaller and "more agile" than the F-86, the planes were roughly comparable there. The MiG had superior ceiling and rate of climb. The Korean War pilots interviewed by Kelly Johnson asked for a plane with superior speed, climb and ceiling in a lightweight package, and that drove the design of the F-104. It also limited its range and load carrying ability as a fighter bomber, which is why USAF brass was not that fond of the airplane.
    143
  2. The photo at time 1:10 should be very informative for those who refuse to accept the purpose of the wing sweep of the 262. This photo of a prototype clearly shows that at first only the outer panels were swept back from the originally straight design, which was done to change the relationship between the center of gravity and the center of pressure caused by engines that were heavier than planned. You can see the wing inboard of the engine remains straight. The whole point of sweeping the outer panel was to avoid changing the structure of the fuselage to move the wing attach point. The sweep of the inboard panel was added later simply by extending the line of the outer leading edge to add additional surface area at the front of inner panel, and the trailing edge remained straight. By the way, the 262 wing was swept nowhere near 35 degrees, it was only 17.5, the same as the DC-3. 35 degrees is more like the F-86.
    101
  3. The F-111B was not for one second ever intended for BFM. It was to be purely a fleet defense missileer. This is why it had to go after the Navy realized it really needed an all-around fighter rather than a missileer. If the F-111B had been intended to dogfight the Navy would never have firmly insisted on the side-by-side cockpit seating over the objections of the USAF.
    82
  4. No, the F-106 was never intended to be the USAF premier air superiority fighter. It was intended to be its premier bomber interceptor, working in concert with the SAGE system. The F-106 not only did not have a gun or a gunsight, it did not originally even have air supply for a pilot G-suit. This is why USAF bought the Navy developed F-4 when it saw an immediate need for a new tactical fighter to replace the F-100 and 104.
    66
  5. Like most Vought designs the F-8 was not that conservative and introduced innovation. The variable incidence wing allowed for shorter and lighter landing gear as well as better pilot visibility on approach to landing. In keeping with some other Vought innovations it worked but was not really necessary, and was not used on subsequent designs. But it was another example of Vought not settling for the common solution.
    51
  6. Reconstitution of destroyed or degraded forces in order to keep an exercise going is standard in furtherance of the goal of learning as much as possible from the limited units and time available in most exercise scenarios.
    35
  7. For those who need fact more than drama, a couple of details about the throttle. The sequence begins with the throttle in the off position, which is behind the idle stop in the right hand normal range of throttle movement. After pressing the starter button the throttle is moved outboard to the start position, and held there until the starter motor fires. At that point the throttle is moved back inboard and supplies ignition to the engine, but not fuel. The throttle must then be moved forward past the off detent into the idle position to supply fuel to the engine and allow it to start. This sequence ensures fuel does not enter the combustion chamber prior to ignition. In runup for takeoff you do not hold the brakes with afterburner lit. After checking the engine in military power you release the brakes and ensure the airplane is rolling straight prior to lighting the afterburner. A nozzle malfunction can cause yaw that would be uncontrollable on the runway.
    30
  8. A lead collision pursuit curve is not designed to provide a head-on attack. It provides a quicker intercept than a pure pursuit curve in which the interceptor just points at the target. The aspect of the final engagement depends upon the relative positions of the interceptor and target when the intercept is initiated, as well as any maneuvering by the target.
    28
  9. Yes the design was already obsolete, but it was still the best jet in actual combat over Germany in WWII. So it wasn't as good as who thought it was, Adolf Galland in 1944, or the YouTube 'community' 80 years later? It was a tool for a job. The controversy has little to do with the machine itself, the problem is that social media 'discourse' causes people to pick a side either for or against something. Like most real things the truth is much less dramatic, but modern society craves drama rather than truth.
    27
  10. The point about the combat formation and tactics used is important. F-8 pilots were superior at air-to-air because it was in their culture and what they trained for. Same for the F-104, which started life and inculcated its community as a pure day fighter. F-104 pilots used superior tactics to other USAF fighters because it was what they focused on to maximize their air-to-air capability. In terms of pure aircraft performance, the F-104 and F-4 were about even at low and medium altitudes and the F104 was superior at high altitudes. The F-4 was superior overall due to its avionics, range, and loadout. But too much is made of turn radius and dogfighting, which is not as large a part of air combat as most think. The Korean war pilots interviewed by Kelly Johnson did not ask him for an airplane that would turn tighter than the enemy. They asked for superior speed, climb, and ceiling, because those are the factors that convey advantage in air combat. Bleeding speed in tight turns squandered the advantage such an airplane had and was not considered an advisable tactic even in WWII.
    22
  11. I have to suspect the wings were larger not because the fuselage was shorter, but to give the heavier jet more lift at slow speed for approach to the carrier. I have to suspect the increase in size of the vertical fin was not to improve lateral stability, but to improve directional stability that was reduced by the shorter fuselage and shorter lever arm between the CG and the fin.
    15
  12. The F-105 didn't have to shoot at aircraft with its gunsight in "ground strafing mode". It was an air to air gunsight when not depressed for ground attack. The F-105 shot down more Migs with its gun than any other fighter in the war.
    14
  13.  @pyronuke4768  Sorry, but your logic is twisted. These terms have meanings. The F-106 was not an air superiority fighter, as claimed by this video. It was designed and equipped to intercept and shoot down bombers attacking the United States; it was not equipped to engage enemy fighters in a battle for air superiority over contested airspace. Just because such specialized aircraft no longer exist doesn't mean we should forget why they existed, especially if we are endeavoring to discuss history.
    14
  14.  @KaoKacique  And then it goes on to say the airplane lacked the BFM capabilities the Navy needed in the real world. This in conjunction with other comments can be interpreted as meaning the airplane was forced on the Navy by McNamara even though it didn't meet its needs. This is the common narrative, but it is not the case. The design did meet the stated needs of the Navy at the time, which were quite specific.
    12
  15. An amazingly ignorant comment.
    12
  16. The all flying tail of the F-86 did not allow removal of the leading edge slats, it allowed superior pitch control at transonic speed when the normal shock attaching to the horizontal tail impeded elevator authority. Removal of the leading edge slats in favor of a wider chord wing was a later upgrade that increased lift at higher speeds with some loss of lift for takeoff an landing.
    11
  17.  @christophmahler  You are misinformed on the genesis behind the fleet defense doctrine. The F-111B didn't need a stronger engine to perform the design fleet defense role, which did not require high maneuverability. Connolly's statement to Congress was made after the Navy had decided it needed to dump the F-111 in favor of a more versatile air superiority fighter that could perform other roles as well as fleet defense. This was the result of combat experience in Vietnam. Connolly had been part of the Navy leadership (their 'fighter mafia') that never wanted a Fleet Defense Fighter in the first place. He had always wanted a true air superiority fighter, but more senior leadership overruled his faction and specified the fleet defense airplane. His statement about how all the thrust in the world wouldn't make the F-111 a fighter is tossed around as a proof that the F-111 design was a failure, but he conveniently failed to mention that the F-111B had never been intended to be the fighter he now said the Navy needed. It's the politics of procurement. The Navy changed its mind about what it really needed, and for decades its PR allies in Congress and the media have aided and abetted misrepresentation of that decision as being due to deficiencies in the F-111B design.
    11
  18.  @absolutelynotacommie  That's not the point. The point is that the Russian war of territorial acquisition against Ukraine is hardly a defensive operation, nor are the weapons being employed.
    10
  19. The conclusions of the exercise were valid and useful in shaping future doctrine. That fact that they are uncomfortable is lamentable but is not a reason to discount them. BTW, it a nuclear rather than conventional war exercise for a reason. There was no need to conduct a conventional war exercise. There had been recent conventional wars, and in the case of a another conventional war in Europe the West would not prevail without a massive buildup of conventional forces that would have been far more expensive then the nuclear one. When passing judgement on the thinking of the time another thing to keep in mind is that fallout is not necessarily as bad as depicted in the movies, depending on the targets. Airbursts are more effective again non-hardened targets, and above a certain height they don't create as much lasting fallout as ground bursts. To borrow from Bucky, "I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but I do say no more than 10 to 20 million killed, tops! Uh, depending on the breaks", is less than the last conventional world war. It was a difficult time.
    10
  20. Yeah, they all had wings and engines.
    9
  21.  @kilianortmann9979  The YA-7F is fascinating because it moved the A-7 even closer to being an F-8 optimized for attack capability. It was what the USAF version of A-7 probably should have been from the start. The YA-7F is noteworthy because the proposal was requested by USAF because they already knew the A-10 was too slow for the interdiction role. The plane had barely lost its new car smell before its limitations were driving a proposal for another airplane, but that is a discussion for a different video.
    9
  22. They did not fly at low speeds and high AOA on this mission. Speed was life, which is why the slow movers were withdrawn. Later USAF Chief of Staff Merrill McPeak wrote that when he was a Misty his minimum airspeed was 500 knots, and if he unintentionally got below that speed he lit the burner until got a minimum of 500 knots back on the jet. (He was also not a fan of the A-10, because he knew it was too slow to survive in the environment he flew in during the 1960s, let alone the even more lethal modern air defense environment, which severely limits its usefulness.) But I do agree they had huge brass ones.
    9
  23.  @marcusott5054  Had Germany used the F-105 in that way it would have also suffered a high accident rate. The problem was not the F-104, it was the type of inherently risky operation coupled with Germany's lack of experience with high-strung Mach 2 aircraft.
    8
  24. All turbojet engines have difficulty with at low rpm at high altitude. The solution is for the fuel control to raise the minimum rpm allowed there.
    8
  25. People hear all sorts of things, but there is nothing to indicate the aerodynamics of this aircraft were modified to make it a bomber interceptor. It was designed as an air superiority fighter, and like all such aircraft it was designed to be faster and fly higher than opposing fighters because that conferred advantage in aerial combat. It was later modified to serve as a fighter-bomber. Any fighter can intercept a bomber, but the F-100 didn't even have a radar or radar homing missiles. The F-102 was the first supersonic purpose-built all-weather bomber interceptor, designed to be directed at bombers by ground control until being able to complete the intercept with its own radar and fire radar homing missiles.
    8
  26.  @wesleyworley8982  "Unlike the F-104, the F-8 had the range to get to North Vietnam where the air war was fought." The F-8 didn't have more range than the F-104, but it only had to travel from carriers off the coast.
    7
  27.  @pyronuke4768  Your convoluted argument is specious and does not change the meaning of the commonly used term air superiority fighter.
    7
  28. The soviets had plenty of tactical medium bombers and fighter-bombers to support offensive operations. SU-7B, SU-17/20/22, SU-24, plus older fighters still useful in the fighter-bomber and ground support roles.
    7
  29. You can't be serious. You are misconstruing the TO&E of the superpowers.
    7
  30. When I was in middle school my study hall notebook contained sketches of airplane designs with telescoping wings. I was wondering why nobody had tried it. Now I know.
    7
  31. The F-111B did not "fail". It met the original specifications for the fleet defense fighter. What failed was the Navy's ability to foresee the needs of the future when issuing those specifications. As a result of combat experience in Vietnam the Navy later realized it could not afford a dedicated fleet defense fighter, and it needed its next fighter to be an all-around air superiority fighter that could also perform the fleet defense role. The F-111B had NEVER been intended to be an all-around air superiority fighter with the dogfighting ability the F-14 would have. Connolly, having been a fighter purist who never wanted the dedicated fleet defense fighter in the first place, was fittingly given the job of putting the nail in its coffin before Congress. But his words are always taken out of context, and the F-111B gets the blame for the Navy's changing requirements.
    7
  32. The F-100 was employed only briefly in the air-to-air role and the great majority of its work was interdiction and close air support, for which the C and D models had been produced. The Misty FACs were indeed a very daring part of its prodigious SEA service.
    7
  33. Yes. USAF has always wanted a gun on its tactical fighters. The bomber interceptors were armed first with unguided rockets and later with radar guided missiles. The F-102 and 106 not only lacked a gun and a gunsight, they lacked provision for a pilot G-suit (added later in life to the 106). They were bomber interceptors. The other century series jets were tactical fighters and all had a gun, whether designed for air superiority like the F-104 or air to ground like the F-105. Even the later F-111A bomber could carry a gun if necessary, although doing so would have been a waste of its specialized expertise.
    7
  34.  @crazymavbro6418  And not just ROE, but basic target selection. When you are only allowed to attack things the enemy has in large numbers instead of things that are in short supply you are squandering the basic attributes of air power.
    7
  35. Why not add the kitchen sink as well. The airplane could not carry both the rockets and the cannon. Also, calling the rockets inaccurate is misplaced criticism. That's like calling the shot pattern of a shotgun inaccurate. The idea was to blanket the area of the sky containing the bomber with a pattern of rockets so that at least one would hit. If the rockets were too accurate, they would all hit the same point, leading to all of them missing in what is known as an accurate miss.
    6
  36.  @sergeipohkerova7211  No, the aircraft could not carry both cannon and the rocket armament without significant performance penalty. You seem to think airplanes are magic vehicles to which weight and internal space don't matter. It's not about "extravagance", it is about reality. Don't compare the destructive power of single shot pellet to a single explosive warhead. The shotgun analogy was about using a spread of projectiles to hit a target, not the destructive power of the projectiles. They were accurate enough, and like I said great accuracy was not desired. Don't compare that to firing pairs of air to ground rockets at a ground target, which is an entirely different thing. I get a kick out of the assumption that these rockets were useless against bombers. Like you said yourself, they (thankfully) didn't get a chance to perform in combat, but when tested against a B-17 they easily destroyed it. Again, reality interferes with assumptions.
    6
  37.  @pyronuke4768  And the F-111 was meant to be a bomber for the Air Force and an interceptor for the Navy. Airplanes can do more than one thing when properly equipped, and the two versions had different equipment for their different roles. The USAF F-4 was equipped from the start to be a tactical fighter-bomber because that's what USAF needed. The F-106 was not so equipped; it was equipped to be an automated bomber interceptor. Read up on ADC and the SAGE system. The F-4 was not equipped for that. The F-106 was not equipped to fight enemy fighters. It didn't even have provision for a pilot G suit because that wasn't needed to intercept bombers attacking the U.S.
    6
  38.  @chriscarbaugh3936  They were not a complete failure. They kept MiGs from attacking the assets for which they flew escort or BARCAP, and even performed successful ground attack missions.
    6
  39. Opinions vary on vertical tape instruments. Despite the theory behind them, many believed it was easy to confuse one reading with another and spend more time scanning, because they all looked the same. When the F-15 came out in the 70s it had gone back to round dials for most instruments.
    6
  40.  @RCAvhstape  It was never intended to be "an actual fighter plane". It was intended to be a bomber for the USAF and a fleet defense interceptor like the Douglas F6D Missileer for the Navy. The Navy's plans changed after experience in Vietnam lead to cancellation of the F-111B and development of the F-14.
    6
  41.  @christophergagliano2051  I know your question was not directed to me, but I'm going to jump in with a comment. Terms like "fighter mafia" and bomber mafia" tend to polarize discussions rather than illuminate them. There were many USAF leaders who wanted to prioritize air to air capability in the next fighter, but they were not all as extreme as Boyd and Sprey. Nevertheless, the advice USAF leadership they did accept was very important in moving the F-15 toward the greatest fighter of its time, and in later getting the follow-on lightweight fighter competition greenlighted. But Boyd and Spey were extremists who wanted to go too far. If they had their way the next fighter would have been a lightweight fighter armed only with guns and IR missiles for close combat. Luckily more mature leadership was in charge, and we got the much larger and more capable F-15 that was going to be absolutely necessary for the next war. Sprey and the extremists were also against the M-1 Abrams tank and other systems, but they were resoundingly proven wrong by combat in the Gulf War, where the weapons they had railed against as “gold plated” proved their worth in battle. People also need to remember that the extremists were against the changes USAF made to the YF-16 to convert it into the more useful multirole fighter that entered service with numerous air forces. It was larger, more versatile, and more capable than the YF-16 prototype. Combat in the real world is not just a 1V1 cage match.
    6
  42.  @christophergagliano2051  Yes I've read the book called Boyd, and much more. Your single source of information is highly biased and tells a slanted story, and some of us here know more. Like I said, they did not control the design of those airplanes. If they had, those airplanes would be quite different from they way they turned out. But you sound like they type who believes the first story you hear and are done deciding, so you reject any contrary information.
    6
  43.  @christophergagliano2051  Your facts are in error becuse you have fallen for the comic book version of the Boyd and Sprey story. It's fake. Bye.
    6
  44. It was fast but did not have the loiter ability or load capability necessary. One thing the F-111B and the F-14 had in common was the VG wing necessary to meet those mission parameters. The A-5 wing was not capable, nor the fuselage for that matter.
    6
  45. There were no advantages to the taildragger landing gear. The video is bunk in that regard. I posted this comment earlier: The type of landing gear fitted to an airplane does not determine its nose attitude on approach. That is a function of the angle of incidence at which the wing is set. This also has nothing to do with 'aerodynamic braking' on approach, which is a term normally reserved for the post-touchdown maneuver used in lieu of wheel braking. What must be meant in the video is that the airplane was draggy enough on approach (probably due to those flaps) to not require additional drag or thrust attenuation devices to maintain safe engine rpm. Another thing, having taildragger landing gear does not shorten the takeoff run unless the airplane isn't able to rotate to the takeoff attitude when necessary. If a plane can't rotate for takeoff (for example due to bicycle landing gear) then you need to have the wing set at an angle of incidence to allow liftoff without rotation. Having nose gear does not limit the pitch attitude an airplane can achieve on the ground. With conventional gear keeping the tail down for the entire takeoff run can actually inhibit acceleration, as compared to raising the tail during acceleration and then rotating when near takeoff speed.
    6
  46.  @robertmaybeth3434  It was obviously suitable, or Germany and Canada would not have bought it specifically to fulfill their NATO obligations to perform that role. You can't see this because you do not understand the role or the history of combat aircraft in general. Here are some facts that may help you understand more: Number of engines is irrelevant. All the aircraft that performed that role in that theater prior to the F-104, such as the F-84, were also single-engine. The F-104 was an improvement due to is speed, which improved its ability to reach its assigned targets, and do so more quickly. All these single engine fighter-bombers had relatively short legs. It was not a long-range strategic bombing mission. The mission was to deliver a tactical nuclear weapon against an enemy airfield, troop concentration, or supply dump. Strike fighters carried external fuel to extend their range, but even so in many cases it was expected to be a one-way mission. Pilots with insufficient fuel to return to a friendly base expected to bail out over a designated safe area for evasion and maybe have a chance to survive the war. People who did not serve during the cold war may not understand such plans, or the commitment it takes to perform them. The weapon loadout was a single tactical nuclear bomb, so how much payload do you need. The F-104 could carry four external fuel tanks in addition to the weapon, so it had sufficient range to reach its assigned targets. Hope that helps you understand the realities.
    5
  47.  @robertmaybeth3434  I served as a pilot who was prepared to bail out above the arctic circle and become a popsicle. Hope your silo was warm with plenty of snack food.
    5
  48.  @feedingravens  "he said it was to a large part simply the giant jump from jets like the Fiat G-91 to this Mach 2 interceptor without intensive training that caused the issues. He said that after the pilots were sent into the USA to train there the number of accidents went down drastically. " That is the true story.
    5
  49.  @slowpoke3102  "It also had horrible handling characteristics" Such as what, it stalls and sinks if you fly too slow? Welcome to manned flight.
    5
  50.  @heatloss  The F-15 was not better by accident, but by hard work.
    5