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

  1.  @ScoopsTVtools  You cannot follow a logical argument. What actually happened can be due to a number of reasons. What actually happened is not in question. The question is what Arnold intended and directed with regard to escort of bombers, and he did not intend that fighters should be denied drop tanks in order to restrict them from escorting bombers all the way to their targets. There is no evidence to support that bizarre claim, but you do not understand the concept of factual evidence. Please go away.
    4
  2. Air National Guard was comparatively loose on enforcing grooming standards back then.
    4
  3.  @robertmaybeth3434  Hey, we were on the same team.
    3
  4. It wasn't an impractical exercise, it generated valuable information. Truth is not always pleasant.
    3
  5.  @djbiscuit1818  It was not my assumptions that led USAF to arm the Sabre Dog with Mighty Mouse rockets instead of cannon. I did not make that choice. I stated that this aircraft could not carry both these rockets and a set of cannon. These were alternatives to each other, and I think the video even alluded to that. Cannons would certainly be more accurate when fired from behind under visual conditions. However, at the time it was thought that the pilot would have insufficient time to accurately aim guns during a head on attack. The rockets could be salvoed more quickly, and only a single round need hit the target to disable it. Not my assumption, but that of those guiding development of the airplane. Cannon were also seen as insufficiently destructive, with multiple hits being necessary to ensure disabling a heavy bomber. A sufficiently destructive gun installation would not only have heavy recoil but would be a much heavier installation than rockets of equivalent destructive capability. Not my assumption, but reportedly the USAF thinking at the time. So perhaps Mighty Mouse rockets did not live up to the hopes for them, but USAF did not return to guns. What replaced these rockets on bomber interceptors? Not cannon, but larger and more sophisticated guided missiles. These facts all tell me something. They may tell you something different. Feel free to challenge the USAF assumptions of the time. I think their number is in the phone book (I’m dating myself again), but I suspect those who made these assumptions and decisions are unable to come to the phone.
    3
  6. Because they were simple day fighters and didn't have a large radar set in the nose. When it became necessary to house a large radar antenna in the nose the intakes were relocated.
    3
  7.  @neilturner6749  I think the Aerial Attack Study is not as closely linked to interception of strategic bombers as one might gather from this video. The F-100 was certainly not one of the aircraft USAF procured for that role during this time frame, and it was not well suited for it even in a pinch. It was a day air superiority fighter upgraded to a fighter bomber in later versions. Like any fighter it could shoot down a bomber (if it could find it), and as you point out defense of the US from attack by enemy nuclear bombers was the purview of more suitable aircraft. I also think too much is made of Boyd in general, as if he was the inventor of these concepts.
    3
  8.  @MrArgus11111  Surprising, but then again this is YouTube, where anybody can post a video about anything no matter how little they really know about the subject. Boyd did a couple of good things such as sparking a mathematical analysis of energy maneuverability. Good pilots tacitly understood EM, but getting into an objective format that helped inform the development of the next generation of fighter planes. But he was an extremist rather than a genius, and luckily senior USAF leadership that had actual experience commanding combat operations did not fall for the extreme concept of the simple dogfighter. Boyd was wrong about what was needed to dominate in actual air combat, as opposed to friendly dogfights over the local air patch, and he and his acolytes were wrong about the need for modernization in general. What was really bizarre was that while they were trying to hobble the USAF with a fleet of simple dogfighters, the Soviets we working as hard as they could to modernize their own weapons systems. The Gulf War proved Boyd and the ‘reformers’ wrong, but they still had the nerve to insisting this war proved them right! There was no way to retreat from the position they had zealously established for themselves, so they tried to twist reality into their own story. To me the OODA loop is just common sense painted up to look like incisive insight. I’ve seen this sort of thing from consultants of all types, particularly in aviation safety. They make a bunch of graphics and charts to explain things you already know with bigger words, and then charge you $400K for it.
    3
  9.  @oreticeric8730  Huh?
    3
  10. No, it was not designed as a point defense interceptor. It was designed as an air superiority fighter. Read the history.
    3
  11.  @SoloRenegade  Oh, you're trying to hurt my feelings. Good thing I don't have any. Like I said, if you think the range reduction at low altitude is comparable there is no use talking to you. Enjoy having the last last word, which of course has to be an insult given your mentality.
    3
  12. Nah, you're dreaming. The reason modern jets don't look like this is becuse they wouldn't have modern radars and weapons.
    3
  13.  @pyronuke4768  You have been wasting our time with convoluted argument that ignore the basic facts. Thanks for stopping.
    3
  14.  @christophergagliano2051  LOL, you keep referring to the one book you read as if it's the bible. All your comments indicate a fundamental lack of understanding and an almost religious fervor. You will not accept facts contrary to your belief so there is no point in debating further. Goodbye.
    3
  15.  @christophmahler  I wrote a response to your question but YouTube seems to have eaten it. Here is an abridged last attempt. I don't have "a source" at my fingertips. I also know Washington's army spent a winter at Valley Forge but I don't have a specific source handy for that either. I've followed the F-111 since the beginning and have read multiple sources in books, magazines, and war college research papers, and all I can suggest is that you can do the same if interested.
    3
  16. Wrong. It was designed as an air superiority fighter, not an "interceptor".
    3
  17.  @DonPatrono  Your opinion on what makes an air superiority plane is uninformed. Your focus on turn radius is mistaken. Every generation of fighter that was faster than the previous generation could not turn as tightly as the previous generation, yet they still kept making faster fighters. This is because speed, climb, and height were the factors that conferred advantage in that era of air combat. Pilots of the faster fighter knew not to get into a slow turning fight with tight turning fighter, but they didn't want to switch places with its pilot. People who think air combat was about tight turning dogfights get their assumptions from video games instead of history books. All that said, a properly handled F-104 could hold its own in a fight with an F-4 and beat it at high altitudes, because it did not turn as poorly in real life as it does in video games. At any rate, your claim that the F-104 was designed as BVR bomber interceptor is false.
    3
  18.  @DonPatrono  You are the one with bias, I just gave you the facts you can't accept. Fact: The F-104 was designed to be a simple air superiority fighter. Your biased opinions on how bad it was do not alter the facts and are of no interest. Fact: The F-104 was never intended to be BVR capable in USAF service. I could go on but why waste my time. You don't know what you are talking about, so please stop trying to spread misinformation.
    3
  19.  @kilianortmann9979  The last thing the Navy wanted was a slow straight-wing jet. The A-10 emulated the A-1 Skyraider, which the Navy was dumping as fast as it could, happily letting South Vietnam and the USAF take them off their hands. This was becuse the agreement that separated the two Vietnams until elections could be scheduled forbade introduction of jet aircraft. After that restriction became moot USAF had a political problem with the Army that the Navy didn't have, and got stuck with slow movers long after their day was past.
    3
  20.  @michaelfrench3396  "My God everybody's so butthurt that I confused TAC and SAC. I'm guessing it's the only problem you could find with my argument." It's a huge mistake indicative of ignorance of the subject matter, and it's not the only problem with your comment.
    3
  21.  @katamarankatamaranovich9986  Obviously people can disagree as to whether these sites should have been attacked, as many did at the time. Many years later even more people can disagree from the comfort of hindsight and no responsibly for avoiding escalation of what supposed to be a limited war, not a no-holds-barred war. I also think they should have attacked the sites, but I can't say I would have made that decision if I'd been in LBJ's chair at the time. The point was the concern was not about 'offending the enemy' -- which is a sarcastic throw-away line in the video -- it was about fear of killing non-enemy personnel on site in an advisory capacity, out of fear of possibly forcing undesired consequences. We've now had had a lot of time to study that war, which didn't look so simple back then. (BTW, they were SA-2s, not SA-5s.)
    3
  22.  @minera7595  "I'm no expert on plane design and might be very wrong, But I think it's possible that "Nose inlet" like the one in F-84 require some time to study and test, unlike the side inlet found in P-59 and P-80" Why would that be? Nose inlet was the original method and side intakes came later and are more complicated.
    3
  23.  @minera7595  It didn’t come first just on the He 178. The Gloster porotype, the Meteor, the Me262, the Arado 234, and even the P-59 all had inlets that let the air flow in a nearly straight shot from the inlet lip to the compressor face. The P-80 is the only plane you mentioned that had side mounted intakes that required the air to flow a less than straight path. The P-80 intake was the newer development, and the F-84 did nothing that had not already been done with and air intake.
    3
  24.  @minera7595  The inlet of the F-84 did not take years to test and presented no structural issues. Doesn't matter if it was the first one on a US made jet, because it was in no way unique. At this point you are just repeating yourself in trying to defend your original idle speculation, which still has no logic behind it. Okay then, believe what you will.
    3
  25. It is entertaining but not necessarily reality. 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.
    3
  26.  @darkknight1340  You seem to think air combat is like an artillery duel, where the longer range gun can hit the enemy without being hit in return. Fighters don't shoot at each other simultaneously from fixed opposing positions; one fighter gets to fire while the other can't. A shorter range gun just means the attacking fighter needs to get a bit closer to score hits, it doesn't mean it will get hit before it get there. By the way, the NR-23 of the MiG-15 has a muzzle velocity of 2,264 ft/s compared to 2,901 ft/s for the AN-M3 .50 cal. Seems to me the M3 is more likely to score hits. This is one reason US fighters retained the .50 cal for as long as they did.
    3
  27.  @Idahoguy10157  No, it was not designed for point defense, it was designed for air superiority. It was designed to do the same thing the F-86 did over MiG Alley in Korea. Kelley Johnson interviewed those pilots and asked them what they wanted in their next fighter. They said a lightweight fighter with superior speed and altitude. That is what the F-104 was designed to do.
    3
  28.  @Idahoguy10157  Like many others you substitute your own misinformed judgment of the airplane in place of the actual facts. I did not give you my judgement or opinion on the origin of the F-104, I gave you the documented facts. You can read them for yourself anywhere actual books on the airplane are sold. You opinion of and inability to understand the airplane it does not change the actual facts. A couple of points to demonstrate your mistaken assumptions: Yes, it had the range too. The F-104 had a slightly greater combat range than the F-86. And yes, the German and Canadian F-104s were bought for the tactical nuclear strike role, and they were going to go west at low level to strike critical WARPACT targets in the event of war.
    3
  29. It was a great idea. The USAF never intended it to be a fighter. The F-111A was a bomber. Just like the F-105 before it and the F-117 after it. Don't be misled by a simple letter.
    3
  30.  @B_Estes_Undegöetz  LOL. The F-86 looks more like the P-80 than the Me262.
    3
  31. ​ @sadwingsraging3044  "Haters spewing"? A lame way to try to denigrate anyone who disagrees with your misinformation. I gave you objective FACTS, which you prefer to ignore in favor of the mantra of a YT channel. Why don't you look up the facts instead of tying your knowledge (or lack thereof) to a channel that ignores facts that do not fit its pet theories.
    3
  32.  @Ksozey  The Yamamoto mission is well documented by USAAF, Smithsonian, and many historians. It also has no bearing on your preposterous claim that Hap Arnold prohibited use of drop tanks on fighter in Europe. His actual directives clearly indicate the opposite. You appear to have no grasp of logic at all.
    3
  33.  @robert-trading-as-Bob69  Perhaps you share some misconceptions with the creator of this video. Perhaps I can help with how you see things. “The airflow over the wing creates lift, which would be difficult with the wing at an angle as per the taildragger scenario envisioned by the video.” The angle of the wing doesn’t make it difficult to create lift, the angle is necessary to create sufficient lift for takeoff. The point is that angle is best controlled with the elevator, and you don’t get a benefit from sitting at that angle prior to nearing takeoff speed (unless on a rough field, see below). “It would take longer to achieve translational lift.” Translational lift is a helicopter thing, not an airplane thing. The wing provides lift as soon as it has airflow moving past it. It just needs to reach a certain airspeed before it has enough lift to break ground. Keeping the wing at a high angle of attack for the entire acceleration run incurs drag that slows the acceleration. Not a problem in a powerful prop fighter like an F8F, but a definite issue for an early jet with poor takeoff acceleration due to low installed thrust. You must have heard of the civilian-owned F-86 that failed to takeoff and crashed into an ice cream stand because the pilot rotated to takeoff attitude too soon. “I do seem to recall crop duster taildraggers having VTOL capabilities.” You must mean STOL capabilities, and of course they do. So does the OV-10 nose dragger. STOL is a function of slow speed lift, and does not require a tail wheel. Tail wheel aircraft are often considered better at coping with rough field surfaces, but for a smooth hard surface the landing gear has no real benefit, and a nose gear usually allows for harder braking after landing. The subject of this video was not designed to be rough field STOL jet. Tailwheel aircraft benefit from lighter weight, and less drag if the landing gear does not retract. It is arguably better for soft rough lumpy surfaces. Other than that they are no benefits and multiple drawbacks to tailwheel landing gear.
    3
  34.  @robertmaybeth3434  If you were an aerospace engineer you would realize that the F-104 was inherently suitable for the high-speed low-level nuclear strike role. But instead, you assume the actual experts who selected the airplane for the role were the idiots.
    2
  35. At time 13:40 we are told that because the plane lacked any power assistance for the control surfaces the controls became very heavy at high speeds. (This is of course normal for unpowered controls). Then a minute later we are told the elevator was fitted with a system that made the stick progressively heavier as the speed increased. This doesn’t seem to make sense in light of the previous statement. Stick force gradient can become too light for reasons such as increasing AOA or aft CG, but unpowered controls getting lighter purely due to increasing airspeed doesn’t sound right. If the elevator stick forces were somehow so light at high speed that overcontrol was hard to avoid, then adding resistance would have made the airplane easier to control for max performance, not harder. The pilot would have an easier time determining how hard to pull without pulling too far. Unless the system was grossly dysfunctional it would not prevent the pilot from achieving max performance, or intentionally exceeding a limit just by pulling even harder. The point here is that if this system was actually necessary to prevent unintentional overstress that does not mean it would prevent intentional overstress by the pilot. I am familiar with servo tabs, spring tabs, and control tabs that reduce stick forces due to high airspeed, and with bobweights that increase stick force required as G increases, but not with a system that somehow adds resistance to unpowered flight controls based on airspeed. Can anyone explain how this worked?
    2
  36. You don't have to have a swept trailing edge to have a swept wing. The angle of sweep is measured by the angle of the 1/3 chord line. This 262 wing was not swept by much, and it was not done to delay compressibility. It was swept only 17.5 degrees, not the 35 degrees stated in the video, which is a number from the F-86. 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 that 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 pit 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.
    2
  37. Pilots who transitioned from the F-4J phantoms where disappointed that the F-14A did not accelerate as well as their previous aircraft and did not see it as an improvement in performance. The F-4J probably had superior maneuverability though most of the flight envelope other than at very low speed.
    2
  38. The F-111B was not an Air Force design. The general configuration of the aircraft was determined as much by Navy needs as those the Air Force.
    2
  39.  @razgriz4978  The F4J was the hot rod of F-4s. I have not seen an EM diagram of these two, nor read pilot reports of dogfights between them, which is why I said probably, and at higher speeds. But the F4J had a better thrust to weight ratio than the F-14A, and as I said pilots who transitioned felt the F-14A was sluggish. Acceleration and sustained turn rate are both products of excess thrust. The F-14 could probably turn a tighter radius when slow with the wings out, but at higher speeds the F-4J probably had some advantage in sustained turn and use of the vertical.
    2
  40.  @jedibusiness789  You missed a lot of swept wing Navy jets if those are the only two you can recall. This channel recently mentioned the FJ-4 Fury, this video mentions the F7U Cutlass, there was the F-11 Tiger, the F8U Corsair, the . . . well, you get the idea.
    2
  41.  @MM22966 I have no idea what that useless comment means, and I don't need to know. Why don't you go troll somewhere else?
    2
  42.  @paulfrantizek102  Interesting - I have never seen or read of a production F-86 with such a notch. Perhaps it was the Fury?
    2
  43. Turning is much less important than you think it is. And it actually could turn with an F-4.
    2
  44. Your view out of focus, because the F-104 was not meant to be a bomber interceptor. Read the history. TAC did not have many of them but did use the F-104 in Vietnam. It served in escort, defensive CAP, and ground support roles. It was not well suited to penetrate heavily defend North Vietnamese airspace and was replaced by the F-4 in that role.
    2
  45.  @douglasgabrielle6623  The F-104 was used for a time by ADC as a stopgap bomber interceptor when the F-102 and F-106 suffered developmental delays, but it was not an excellent bomber interceptor. The F-104 wasn't equipped to operate under the SAGE system, and didn't even have radar homing missiles. It was a clear air day fighter, not an all weather bomber interceptor. The premise of this video faulty because there was no choice between the F-104 and the F-4. They both served well in Vietnam, but the 104 had a much smaller role. F-4 was certainly the better airplane for penetration of heavily defended areas of North Vietnam.
    2
  46.  @MrKentaroMotoPI  A simple pitot inlet does not have to be at the nose, and an inlet at the nose is not necessarily a pitot inlet.
    2
  47. It believe it was a Packard rather than an Allison, but I also read they had to revise the engine drawings and tolerances to facilitate mass production.
    2
  48. 5:55 "The tricycle landing gear was possible because there was no propeller needing ground clearance." The P-38, P-39, F7F, and others would call that preposterous. What kept a nosewheel off most prop fighters was inconvenience of the nose mounted engine.
    2
  49. You really never heard this before? It's deceptively simple: The strike aircraft flies at low level to avoid detection by radar and limit the engagement envelope of ground based air defenses. The weapons can be lofted, tossed, or retarded by parachute to give the aircraft time to escape the blast zone.
    2
  50. The F-5 was inferior to the F-104. The F-4 was the best USAF had for the job.
    2