General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Gort
Not A Pound For Air To Ground
comments

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

Previous
5
Next
...
All

@ReviveHF I commented on the F-5 vs F-104 but you want to confuse things with an unrelated comment about the F-4. Random thought generator at work, or did you mean the comment for someone else. But since you raised the subject, USAF had the F-106 as its strategic bomber interceptor. Although it was USAF's most capable tactical fighter the F-4 was nowhere near as suitable as the F-106, and hardly perfect for its role. The F-4 wasn't even equipped to operate under the SAGE system. Unlike the F4 and F-104, the F-106 was originally designed as a dedicated bomber interceptor and was not equipped to be a tactical fighter.
1
@IgnoredAdviceProductions The reason the F-105 had so many guns kills is that it had more exposure to MiGs than and other fighter, up close, where the gun was easier to employ in self-defense than the rarely carried missile. They didn't have to find MiGs because the MiGs found them.
1
@SoloRenegade Yes, they would have to have been forward based to escort the deeper missions, and they certainly could have done the closer escort relays. It would have been more challenging in terms of combat radius, but doable. One point to consider is that the book figures for range would not hold up well for a combat mission involving a lot of time spent joining up into squadron and group formations. Circling the field at low altitude while everyone gets joined up would impact the range of a jet more than it did for a piston. The F-80 successfully flew ground attack missions from Japan to Korea and back in the early days of that war, but they were small formations that could almost immediately begin climb to cruise altitude.
1
@wanderschlosser1857 You are clearly and demonstrably wrong, but thankfully someone else has already explained why and saved me from that dreary task.
1
@thelandofnod123 So, I mention the fact that opinions on how good the 262 was have become artificially polarized by the state of online discourse, and you blame me for the polarization. I think you must have nodded off at some point. It seems you don't even understand what the word discourse means. I didn't say you said something controversial, I said judging how good the airplane was outside the context of its use is pointless. You think it wasn't as good as people thought it was. Which people? It seems you mean armchair aviation enthusiasts that didn't fly the airplane in combat, and who compare it to other jets that came later. Adolf Galland thought the 262 was terrific and wanted to cancel production of all piston fighters in favor of the 262. He didn't know North American would soon produce an F-86, he knew he need to best the North American P-51 and get at the B-17. The 262 was pretty damned good in the context of what the Luftwaffe needed at the time. Who cares if it wasn't as good as fighters developed later. In that context the P-80 was "better", but as I said it wasn't in combat over Germany.
1
@paulmaxwell8851 Thank you for understanding my point and not using it to go off on a tangent as some others have.
1
@johnshepherd9676 If you say so.
1
@wanderschlosser1857 The fact that the early P-80 may have been a few knots slower on its early engine doesn't change anyone's mind as to which was the better airplane overall. Sometimes models the Spitfire were faster than the Fw190 and sometimes it was not. The 262 design was a dead end and the P-80 lived on for a long time.
1
@thelandofnod123 Thanks for providing a perfect example of what I was talking about. He was fighting the war and you are an armchair opinionist who thinks he knows better. He is certainly not the foolish one. That fact that you think an aircraft that was superior in combat pointlessly consumed resources indicates just how foolish you are. As I suspected, you are indeed on one side of an ignorantly polarized argument. Have fun constructing more dumb conclusions.
1
@wanderschlosser1857 You keep pointing to Greg's analysis as though it will change my mind. I've already seen it. While I value Greg's analysis of supercharging and piston engine control systems, he is not the expert in all areas his followers think he is. At any rate I'm not really interested in arguing the P-80 vs the 262 in the first place. I merely politely agreed with solo renegade when he said that to me. If you want go on arguing that the 262 was better I suggest you take it up with him because he likes arguing about it. Bye.
1
@wanderschlosser1857 I'm not obliged to argue with you about anything just because I made a simple comment. You just want to keep dicing the mouse turds when I told you I'm not interested in the mouse. Get a grip.
1
@thelandofnod123 Did I not say I'm done with you. You can't think your way out of a paper bag, and I'm not interested in reading any more of your moronic comments.
1
@thelandofnod123 I've already read enough of your illogical drivel to know you are the fool you claim Adolf Galland to be. I will not waste any more time with you.
1
@wanderschlosser1857 I don't like arguing over opinions with someone such as yourself who can't see the issue and just wants to focus on meaningless details. Nobody is obligated to argue with you.
1
@thelandofnod123 I did make an argument, you are just too stupid to recognize it. It's also stupid of you to demand I cite sources when you do nothing of the kind. One can't win an argument with a stupid person, which is why it is pointless to continue with you. For the benefit of others I will say that nod's argument that Galland was a fool for wanting to suspend production of prop fighters in favor of the 262 rests mainly on the fact that German aircraft production was restricted by lack of resources. That is a stupid argument, because scarcity of resources is itself the very reason Galland wanted to shift them from propeller fighters to the 262. When you can only build, fuel, and crew a limited number of fighters, it makes sense to expend scarce resources on planes that will have the advantage in combat.
1
@GreenBlueWalkthrough What wasn’t what by any metric? If you want to comment on comments that are four months old you have to be more specific. Here you might be talking about the Me262 or the P-80. I will address a couple of you statements just to point out why I have no interest in further discussion with you. “I never heard of a ME-262 going supersonic in a dive yet it's extermly esasy to do in a Mustang” That myth has been busted many time over so I reject your claim. If this is your level of knowledge I’m not interested. “... Like where do you get this idea that it was the best jet let alone plane over germany in WW2?” Here you must be talking about this comment on the 262: “Yes the design was already obsolete, but it was still the best jet in actual combat over Germany in WWII.” You obviosity can’t grasp the point, which is that the Me-262 was the ONLY jet fighter in combat over Germany in WWII. Pay attention to what is being said before you try to jump into a pointless argument.
1
In that stage of the war the F-105 usually carried 750 lb. bombs rather than 500 lb. bombs. The double sidewinder rack was high drag and was avoided, but I don't think the single missile rack was high drag. However, it was often replaced by a bomb or an ECM pod anyway.
1
Or electric. But not hydraulic. Good catch of another video making inaccauraet assumptions for the sake of a dramatic script.
1
The subject matter of this video is very interesting. I wish it could have been presented without all the annoying drama and hyperbole.
1
@Ernest-jr The sweep angle of the XP-55 has nothing to do with compressibility and is there to provide stability, just like the wing sweep of flying wings or the Me-163. There is nothing wrong with the agility and stability of the 262. Slats have nothing to do with stability. Slats are nothing special and were in use before the Me262. The BF-109 had them. Many jet fighters had either slats or leading edge flaps for the same reason, greater lift and control at low speed. They are a high lift devices that remain in use in some airliners.
1
@Ernest-jr You think you have accurate info on the XP-55, but you do not. What is "less agility" ? Of course the Me 262 had a larger turn radius than the slower aircraft to which those pilots were comparing it. That is natural function of speed, and is not a deficiency. Swept wings do not have "difficulties" near stall speed. Swept wings behave different than straight wings, and actually have some superior stall characteristics. The world has not gone back to straight wings for faster aircraft. Next time you fly on an airliner take a look at the wing. The F-86 had slats. It had nothing to do with high speed stability, it had to do with need for more low speed lift.
1
@RCAvhstape The F-111 was never intended to be "an actual fighter plane". It was intended to be a bomber and a fleet defense aircraft. The lessons of the TFX program are commonly misinterpreted, but if you repeat a narrative for decades it becomes "truth". The idea that one basic airframe could fulfill two different roles was not a dumb idea at all. History is full of examples of aircraft that were versatile enough to fly for different services and even perform different missions. The original requirements presented by the Navy and USAF were not incompatible, but the requirements later changed. When the TFX program began the USAF and USN were both asking for a large aircraft that could lift a heavy load of fuel and weapons, with long range or long loiter, plus high-speed dash or intercept. To achieve this twin engines and an innovative variable geometry wing were called for, and DOD logically assessed that it would be wasteful to develop two very expensive advanced airframes when a single one with some variations could do both jobs. The reason one basic airframe could do both jobs was because original USN specification was for a fleet defense fighter, not an air superiority fighter. It was not originally intended to be what later became the F-14, but to perform the role meant for the Douglas F6D Missileer, with the addition of supersonic dash capability. It was not intended to be a dogfighter. The biggest difference between the airframe requirements of the two services was that the USAF wanted a tandem cockpit and the USN wanted side-by-side seating. Boeing tried to make both services happy and made two different configurations, but MacNamara’s DOD wanted more commonality and thought USAF could suck it up and have the crew sit side by side. This is ironic considering that when the Navy cancelled its version USAF was stuck with the cockpit it didn’t want, which also ironically contributed to the airplane being too ungainly to be a dogfighter. If the Navy had wanted a dogfighter it would not have insisted on the side-by-side cockpit over the objections of the Air Force. The F-111 cockpit was suitable for a radar interceptor, but not for an air superiority fighter. The original idea wasn’t dumb -- what happened was that needs changed. USN revised its requirements for its next fighter as result of combat experience in Vietnam, and they realized that the missileer was too limited a role. The also needed an air superiority fighter to replace the F-8 and F-4, but couldn’t afford that in addition to a dedicated fleet defense aircraft. Thus, the TFX would now have to be able to dogfight as well as be a missile interceptor. The F-111B could have worked as a missileer, but it was too fat and underpowered to compete as an air superiority fighter. It was proper of the Navy to recognize that its needs had evolved. This was perhaps the beginning of the Navy realizing that budgets and hangar decks did not have room for so many specialized aircraft. USAF desperately needed the F-111 to replace the F-105, so they sucked it up and accepted the overweight airframe caused by the loveseat cockpit they never wanted.
1
@christophergagliano2051 LOL. You are believing a fantasy. The F-15 came out great despite the fighter mafia's attempt to hamstring it. You are uninformed and need to find better sources of information. But you won't, so I'm done repeating the facts you reject. Bye.
1
@christophergagliano2051 "And another thing, you certainly don't need radar if you got an airborne early warning aircraft that can direct/warn you to the enemy aircraft, And that's a fact." This is funny, you telling Karl Gruner the facts about what is needed in fighters.
1
@christophergagliano2051 Boyd was as silly as you are in thinking that radar missiles were a waste of time. History proved him wrong 35 years ago. Apparently you have trouble keeping up with real world events and still want to believe Boyd was correct. Wake up and accept reality.
1
What do you mean by working and floating? All wings are still working even at angles of attack where much of the flow has separated. Also, the term laminar flow airfoil described an airfoil with is peak upper surface camber pushed father aft on the chord. The more gradual rise and aft peak was meant to maintain laminar flow over more of the wing, but not necessarily all the way to the trailing edge.
1
@christophmahler I get a chuckle when people ask for "a source" for any fact which is contrary to their already accept narrative even though what that narrative is often supported merely by internet chatter or undocumented YouTube videos. Sorry, but I can't recall "a source" to make your research easier and I'm not going to go search my library. I also know Washington's army spend a winter at Valley forge, but I don't recall a source for that either. I'm old and I've followed the F-111 since its development. There is plenty of documentation of these facts in books and war college research papers, so you'll have to do some reading.
1
@tararaboomdiay7442 No the F-111A was not going to be an air-to-air fighter, it was to be air to ground only. I did not say it was originally planned to replace the B-58, but it did also replace the B-58, just as I said. The F-111B handled well around the boat, which is the opposite of the story you hear on YouTube. Lack of carrier suitability was not the reason the plane was cancelled.
1
@tararaboomdiay7442 I've stated correct facts and I'm not going to keep repeating myself or arguing with you about irrelevant details that don't change those facts.
1
@paulholmes672 "The carrier trials of the Aardvark were after it's cancellation, and may have been done because the Navy knew if it flew/landed fine, it was moot." Yes, it did fly fine, but it seems the Navy tried to cover that up because it didn't support the decision to cancel. Today a myth survives that the airplane was not suitable for carrier landings, yet the accounts I read by actual Navy pilots such as Heatley indicate the airplane was well-mannered and was stable and responsive during approach and landing.
1
@Ernest-jr You don't know what you are talking about. The Ascender was not fast, and its swept wings were not there to make it fast. And I can't even imagine what you think the the M52 has to do with the subject of swept wings. You are obviously uninformed and I don't see any point in arguing with you.
1
@Ernest-jr I don't know what you think you are telling me, but what you actually wrote is non-factual. You think you know and understand a lot more than I do because of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Like I said, you don't know what you are taking about, and you are not worth arguing with.
1
@christophmahler I do not see the connection between my comment about aircraft design specifications and your desire to begin a discussion related to geopolitics. I would suggest that is an interested topic but that it would be better discussed elsewhere.
1
@christophmahler You ware playing with words. Of course procurement involves politics (in a democracy), but the F-111B design was not driven by colonialism and proxy wars, it was driven by the race in airpower technology. During this era airpower technology and doctrine were progressing so rapidly that airplanes were often obsolete before they entered service, and some were even cancelled before they entered service. The only politics here is the domestic politics of the Navy trying to save face by blaming the F-111B that had been designed its now discarded doctrine. Colonialism and proxy wars are a very different subject. Have nice day.
1
@christophmahler You are full of nonsense. Goodbye, and I no longer care if you have a nice day so leave me alone.
1
@christophmahler That's just a bunch of nonsense. Have a nice day.
1
@IgnoredAdviceProductions McNamara was not wrong to believe that a USAF and a Navy aircraft could share a common airframe for different roles, but he went too far in continuing to cancel the design the services settled on. Not that the additionally commonality he wanted was technically infeasible, but it was politically infeasible. The Navy could not bring itself to accept anything USAF wanted. For example, one of the biggest sticking points between the services was the USAF insistence on tandem seating for its tactical bomber, version while the Navy insisted it must have side-by-side seating for its fleet defense interceptor version. Ironically USAF was overruled and forced to accept the loveseat cockpit, yet when Grumman took over to build the F-14 the first thing ditched was that loveseat cockpit, and the F-14 got the tandem seating USAF wanted for the F-111. The interservice conflict still lives on in social media, where most people have no idea what really happened and simply accept all the fables repeated about the F-111B. If they could put aside their hate of McNamara and just look at the airplane they might be able to see the truth.
1
@IgnoredAdviceProductions I don't disagree with you about the deep motivations of the Navy, but the actual rationale for side-by-side seating was so that the pilot and RIO could share a single radar display as well as eliminate need for a lot of duplication in an aft cockpit. It might also make crew coordination (and holding hands) easier and more efficient. The Navy did this for other aircraft like the A-6 Intruder, so it had established that precedent. USAF had established the opposite precedent, and preferred tandem seating for all tactical aircraft. They even insisted that the USAF version of the British Canberra bomber be modified into a tandem seating configuration. What most who blame McNamara for the poor performance of the F-111B as a fighter fail to realize is that the loveseat cockpit is prima facia evidence that the jet was not meant to be a dogfighter. The later F-14 was designed to dogfight as well as perform long range fleet defense, which is why the loveseat was the immediately ditched from that design.
1
@IgnoredAdviceProductions “Now I know what the reasoning for side by side seating is, but considering no fighter has ever had that seating arrangement, it's a pretty flimsy excuse.” Of course real fighters don't have side-by-side seating, that was my point. But you are missing the important point that the F-111B was not a fighter; it was a fleet defense radar interceptor which was a follow-on to the cancelled Douglas F6D Missileer. That airplane also had side-by-side seating for the pilot and RIO. It was cancelled because it was too slow, after it had been decided that the role would require a higher performance jet. I would not have chosen side-by-side seating, but for this narrow role it is not completely illogical. “I blame McNamara for the vark mess because there WAS a design that both the Air Force and Navy were happy with, the Boeing model 818. The source selection board approved it 6, Six with a capital S, times and he overrode them every time, fired everyone, and decided to just go with the General Dynamics/Grumman design instead because "he said so," completely ignoring the experts telling him over and over, "no, this is going to be a complete disaster, stop it" all because he wanted to chase his stupid "commonality." I already said I essentially agree with this, so you are repeating yourself. You can hate McNamara all you want for various reasons, but I’m limiting my discussion to the technical merits of the TFX program. I say the essential objective of commonality was valid, but he pushed it to a disruptive extreme. He had to assert his authority and make his mark. The program could have succeeded if he'd listened better, but he believed he was always the smartest person in the room. In this particular case, the idea that one basic airframe could fulfill two different roles was not a dumb idea. History is full of aircraft that were versatile enough to fly for different services and even perform different missions. The original requirements presented by the Navy and USAF were not aerodynamically or structurally incompatible. The reason one basic airframe could do both jobs was because the original USN specification was for a heavy fleet defense fighter, not an air superiority fighter. It was not originally intended to be what later became the F-14, but to perform the role meant for the Douglas F6D Missileer, with the addition of supersonic dash capability. It was not intended to be a dogfighter. Both services were asking for a large aircraft that could lift a heavy load of fuel and weapons, with long range or long loiter, plus high-speed dash for penetration or intercept. To achieve this a large airplane with twin engines and an innovative variable geometry wing were called for. Given rising budget pressures and development costs, DOD logically assessed that it would be wasteful to develop two very expensive advanced airframes when a single airframe with some variations could do both these jobs. Ultimately, the Navy changed the job requirements for F-111B after it had been designed, which is why it was canceled. Don’t get us started dissecting the F-35 or we will really be off in the weeds.
1
@bradenhagen7977 Visual ground attack is different at night. And they used the B-26 in those wars because it was already available, not because it was procured for the role. T
1
@Basicallybaltic No kidding. Nobody has claimed the P-47 was a light bomber. Of course it didn't have a bomb sight! The claim here is that a fighter bomber is more suitable than a light bomber or medium bomber for close support and battlefield air interdiction. The video even pointed out that the A-26 did better when used like a medium level bomber than it did as a battlefield attack aircraft. Speed and agility are more important over the contested battle area. You also miss the point that long range is not needed to support or interdict the battlefield. (Even so, the P-47 could carry two bombs six rockets, and a drop tank, or two drop tanks, a bomb and six rockets.) Deep interdiction may require more range, but that is not what we are talking about.
1
@petestorz172 The first three aircraft you just listed had to be twin engine to have the performance desired (speed and load). At the time a single engine could not do the job.
1
@RCAvhstape Apparently you did not comprehend my comment, which is that I do not believe that story. Of course the Navy said that, but the real reason was to prevent having the F-16 forced on them. The F-18 as developed did end up with attributes more suitable for the dual role the Navy planned for it, but two engines was not the primary attraction of the YF-17.
1
@jedibusiness789 I think if the Spitfire could be navalized anything can be navalized, the question whether it is the best choice available. The F-16 as developed for USAF use was not carrier suitable, but neither was the YF-17 before it was navalized, so the YF-16 could have also been navalized. I'm not saying it would have been better or even as good as the F-18 was for the Navy, but the commonality and potential cost savings was behind the proposal to have the Navy adopt the F-16.
1
"We have learned at a terrible and a brutal cost that retreat does not bring safety, and weakness does not bring peace." The truest words ever uttered by LBJ. It's too bad most in his country seem to have have forgotten them.
1
The P-82 design originated as a long range bomber escort, which is why it was assigned to Strategic Air Command, just as the P-51 was assigned to 8th Air Force in WWII. Only someone filled with mistaken animosity toward bombers would expect otherwise and chalk this up to "intense US Air Force politics".
1
When it set the altitude record for a turboprop aircraft, was the turbojet engine also running? If so that was not really a turboprop record.
1
I can see why the airplane can be of interest even though a failure, but I don't see how it is "The Most Important Interwar Aircraft You've Never Heard Of".
1
Tips tanks of the P-80 could be dropped in flight. The F-104 could also drop its tip tanks.
1
It wouldn't have been superior. Lockheed explored using a delta wing for the F-104 but discarded it. They chose the small straight wing for its advantages over a delta wing.
1

Previous
5
Next
...
All