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

Gort
Australian Military Aviation History
comments

Comments by "Gort" (@gort8203) on "Australian Military Aviation History" channel.

No, this is just more YouTube mythology. The XL was originally designed to explore improved supersonic L/D and allow for super cruise. The airplane did not achieve its super cruise goals. It would probably have been somewhat more maneuverable at supersonic speed, but at subsonic speed it had more induced drag and therefore lower sustained turn rate than the original F-16, which after all had been intentionally optimized for maximum sustained turn performance. The XL was later entered in the ETF program, but this was not its original purpose. The super cruise goal was forgotten when carrying bombs. It would have been a good strike aircraft, but the F-15E was less expensive, less risky, and more capable in some ways. The XL was not produced for sound reasons.
18
Fighters like the F-4 had undersides painted in a light gray to blend with the sky, not in anti-flash white to reflect thermal energy like the B-52. The gray paint scheme of modern jets is camouflage, just a more universal color scheme. A lot of USAF aircraft in the late 50s and early 60s which appear to be unpainted were actually painted in aluminized silver or a light gray, primarily for the purpose of corrosion control. Aircraft suffered from sitting out on the ramp in all weather conditions. The paint not only sealed the surface, but sealed minor gaps that could allow rainwater to penetrate to interior components.
15
Yup, Northrop hit a sweet spot with the N-156 and all its offspring, but that origin goes back to the late 1950s. It was so good that with upgrades it was able to maintain a place as a low cost export fighter for a long time, but never could rise to becoming a mainline fighter for a major power air force. The F-16 and F-18 did rise because they couldn't help but surpass the inherent limitations of this decades old design, regardless of how good looking that design remained.
12
The German Amerikabomber was never going to be supersonic. That is ludicrous.
10
"Can a Viper turn into a Warthog?" Misleading question. Of course not, but that's not the point. The F-16 can do everything needed for CAS, plus many more things the A-10 cannot do. The case has been closed for a long time now.
8
Not crazy, logical. It was a very different airframe, would have been expensive, and was not needed. The correct choice was made.
7
@heyfitzpablum What makes you think the SU-25 has insufficient “loiter capability”? (Not that I agree it is the most important attribute of a ground attack aircraft.) What makes you think the SU-25 lacks the capability to communicate with those necessary in accomplishing its mission? Both of your claims appear to be focused on CAS and are beside the point I made, which is that the SU-25 is suitable for a greater variety of missions than the A-10 is.
7
Or it suggests that they each worked for different times, purposes, and places.
7
It's true that CAS is only one of many ground attack missions, and that the SU-25 design is suitable for more of them, which is why it is faster and has greater range than the A-10.
6
@heyfitzpablum You don't listen. Where did I say the A-10 and the SU-25 have identical roles? I said the SU-25 is more suitable for a greater variety of missions than the A-10, such as interdiction or armed recce, as well as close air support. I asked if you have reason to believe the SU-25 has insufficient loiter capability the job, or that it lacks the radios necessary for the job, and the crickets I hear in response tell me you have no reason. You just regurgitate the A-10 talking points because you want to claim the A-10 is better. I'm not saying the A-10 isn't better for the very narrow mission of strafing undefended tanks with a 30mm gun, but that mission has proved be a pipe dream anyway. The A-10 hardly has a monopoly on CAS, and the Su-25 was indeed specifically meant for that role as well, and is actual a more broadly relevant aircraft. The reason is that the A-10 was born of politics. The authoritarian USSR government did not force the SU-25 design to placate the interservice rivalry that distorted the acquisition process in the U.S. BTW fixed wing and helicopters have different roles and tactics. In Iraq the Army relearned that lesson when they tried to employ the Apache like fixed wing aircraft. USAF gave the A-10 the 30mm gun in order to take the anti-tank role from the prototype Cheyenne helicopter/fixed wing hybrid because that aircraft was designed to be employed on the battlefield like a fixed wing aircraft. BTW, I don't put much weight on the loitering story. In fact, I repeated it to an A-10 pilot once and he told me it was BS. If you look at the history of CAS, rapid response to a call for support has actually been just as if not more important than loiter, and the A-10 is a slug when it comes to getting there quickly when troops need immediate support.
6
@toomanyuserids And the P-47 was the best at high altitude, where it completed outclassed the F6F. Tools for purposes.
6
@wololo10 No, it had nowhere near 2000 mile range on internal fuel. The clean range of the F-5E was less than 500 miles on internal fuel, and the F-20 must have been similar.
6
The F-16 doesn't really have any more of a 'negative lift ' tail than the XL. That is the whole point of relaxed static stability and the aft center of gravity. The idea was a wing with higher lift to drag ratio at supersonic speed to allow super cruise on the same thrust. It didn't really pan out. On top of that It would have been inferior during subsonic maneuvering. We didn't get any because we need this airplane.
6
@SoloPilot6 And they still had more capability than brand new F-20s.
6
I think it's hyped simply because it was a non-U.S. jet that was canceled. I've been trying to post the below in response to another comment but it keeps getting censored. Lets see if it works here: @RJM1011 said “The people I worked with at Boscombe Down said the TSR2 was the BETTER aircraft even when they had the F111's there from the USA in the 1980's.” It seems I’m supposed to accept the opinion of a biased group with a vested interest the TSR 2. Forgive me if I ask exactly why the TSR was BETTER. Was it: Better speed (faster)? No Better rate of climb? No. Better service ceiling? No. Better range? No. Better bombload? No. Better avionics? We’ll never know what might have been, but we do know the F-111 actually flew automated low-level at night in the weather operationally. The FB-111 version even had an astrotracker navigation system. Better as in safer and easier to fly and more capable of operating from various runways under various conditions? The YouTube viewers who pillory the F-104 for its high wing loading (as if that’s always a bad thing) would be distressed to hear that the TSR2 wing loading even as a prototype approached that of a late model F-104, and exceeded that of the F-105, which the F-111 was designed to replace. The 105 could already lift more than the TSR2, and the 111 could lift much more off shorter runways and take it further. I have to assume they thought the TSR2 was better simply because it was British.
5
@alexhurlbut As I said, I fail to see your point. The P-47 was more expensive than the F6F -- so what? Did the P-47 outperform the F6F in its intended role? Yes. What is your point in comparing these two in the context of the F6F vs the F4U?
5
@AmericasChoice Strength and durability are not superior engineering, they are easily achieved by excess material when it comes to airplanes and race cars. Superior engineering is making it strong enough while lighter and smoother than it would be if you just threw more material at it.
5
Only an opportunity to spend more money for less capability than the F-15E.
5
@JohnyRodriguez-n3p The A-37 did a lot better at what, penetrating North Vietnam air defenses to bomb heavily defended targets. Get real.
4
@heyfitzpablum I don't need to know anything about you to comment on your behavior here. You can pretend to occupy the high ground all you want, but you're not fooling anyone.
4
Actually, if you want to get really technical a jet of gas does propel the airplane. It is not a TURBOjet, which generates its reaction jet in a specific way, but it is powered by a jet. JATO or jet assisted takeoff was also done with rocket motors rather than turbojets. JPL , which developed those rockets, is still called the Jet Propulsion Laboratory even though its spacecraft are not powered by turbojet engines.
4
@alexhurlbut Huh?? You must be aware that the P-47 was used in the high-altitude escort role over Germany. And the Germans used "combatant planes" that would have run away from the F6F, which was inadequate for that role. Not sure what your point is, but my point was don't try to belittle the P-47 because it was more expensive than a plane with inferior performance.
4
@RJM1011 “The people I worked with at Boscombe Down said the TSR2 was the BETTER aircraft even when they had the F111's there from the USA in the 1980's.” It seems I’m supposed to accept the opinion of a biased group with a vested interest the TSR 2. Forgive me if I ask exactly why the TSR2 was BETTER. Was it: Better speed (faster)? No Better rate of climb? No. Better service ceiling? No. Better range? No. Better bombload? No. Better avionics? We’ll never know what might have been, but we do know the F-111 actually flew automated low-level at night in the weather operationally. The FB-111 version even had an astrotracker navigation system. Better as in safer and easier to fly and more capable of operating from various runways under various conditions? The YouTube viewers who pillory the F-104 for its high wing loading (as if that’s always a bad thing) would be distressed to hear that the TSR2 wing loading even as a prototype approached that of a late model F-104, and exceeded that of the F-105, which the F-111 was designed to replace. The 105 could already lift more than the TSR2, and the 111 could lift much more off shorter runways and take it further. I have to assume they thought the TSR2 was better simply because it was British.
4
@AmericasChoice LOL! You are opining about which aircraft was superior in order to try to invalidate my general statement about what constitutes superior engineering when I didn't even say which airplane I think was better. Why don't you read what I said instead of getting triggered into a fanboy outrage by it? Strength and durability are easy. Strength and durability while providing superior performance is superior engineering. Same for race cars as for fighter planes. Durability keeps you in the fight, but performance is what wins the fight, and excess durability hinders performance. By the way, you are obviously ignorant about which of these two aircraft had superior performance, because it was not the F6F. Crack open a book or two yourself. You sound like a PR man for Grumman.
4
@AmericasChoice You really just want to continue with childish personal attacks? Why not try to refute my point? Oh, you can't because your point has no logic behind it. If you want to start over and try to use logic refute this: Strength and durability are not superior engineering, they are easily achieved by excess material when it comes to airplanes and race cars. Superior engineering is making it strong enough while lighter and smoother than it would be if you just threw more material at it.
4
I wasn't made then, there were only two prototypes that failed to sell the concept. No reason to build it now.
4
"The XL design had too many more advantages over the original one to be dismissed like this." No it didn't. It had some advantages, and some disadvantages, such as subsonic sustained turn performance and higher cost
4
You mean the mission, not the airplane. At the time there was no better airplane for the mission. Any airplane available would have suffered the same losses.
3
@heyfitzpablum I guess you don't realize when you are arguing. Glad to now see you agree with me.
3
It was not petty politics, it was geopolitics, and it was not superior to the F-16.
3
That's why the video intentionally ignores the earlier versions and states it is only discussing the Merlin equipped versions.
3
@jacktattis I'm sure you saw that figure somewhere, so I don't doubt your reporting, but figures I've seen show that even the F4U-1 still had more than 200 fpm on the F6F. If two equivalent period service versions of these planes were ever comparison tested on the same day by the same pilot with same technique, I'd like to see that report.
3
A single AIM-9 was sometimes carried, but the opposite pylon was need for an ECM pod. The double AIM-9 rack on a single pylon produced drag all out of proportion to its size and slowed the airplane too much. To use the AIM-9 was actually more problematic than using the gun. The 105s did have fighter escort and CAP, and adding more of them would not have necessarily been a game-changer considering the attack methods used by the MiGs. Most 105s were downed by old fashion AAA, not MiGs.
3
The airplane probably didn't last much longer than 25 hours in combat anyway.
3
@randycoursey7230 Your comments are confusing: "The f6f was not designed for high altitude". Did I say it was? Actually, it did have a good 2-stage supercharging system which was good at high altitude, just not as good at the even higher altitude the P-47 was designed for. You also said this, which is inexplicable light of the previous comment: "I thought the p-47 and F4U Corsair had the exact same engines with the same superchargers?" They did not have the exact same engines and supercharges. They had close to identical R-2800 engines, but different second stage superchargers, the F6F being mechanical and the P47 exhaust driven. Both aircraft did what they were designed to do, which was not exactly the same. What is your problem with what I said?
3
@ThatsMrPencilneck2U Good point, but actually as a technical detail the F4U had a perfectly cylindrical cowl because the intakes for the oil cooler and intercooler were in the wing roots instead of in the cowl as they were for other aircraft, for example the F6F. The F4U had some sophisticated aerodynamic features for its time.
3
The politicians were right to cancel it. It would have been a very expensive way to support the UK aviation industry, but better options like the F-111 were available.
3
@RJM1011 That cancelation came later. At the time the TSR2 was cancelled the F-111 look cheaper. The devaluation of the British Pound in combination with the additional development for the F-111K version inflated its price and made it also unaffordable to Britain in the end. But it would have been a better airplane than the TSR2 would have been.
3
@Idahoguy10157 AF isn't telling Congress A-10s are worn out, they are telling Congress A-10s are obsolete and sucking up money needed for other programs. Congress has finally seen the light. There is no need for the A-10, but there is a need for things the B-52 can do.
3
USAF already had a fighter like that called the F-16, which also had longer range and twice the bombload.
3
@johnw5761 Why the discussion of feelings? Obviously, you are the one here that has feelings, but you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to facts. I'm sure you cannot articulate any reasonable explanation as to how another available airplane would have "done better" than the 105 in the role it was assigned.
2
@thedolt9215 The A-10 would have been dead meat over North Vietnam, where speed was life. It was not designed for that role or environment.
2
@johnw5761 Calling something junk is subjective feeling. Any objective evaluation, of which you are clearly incapable, is not a feeling and would not conclude it was "junk".
2
@johnw5761 That is not a fact, that is your opinion, which is based on feeling rather than logic. There is no hope of you understanding this, but for the benefit of others who want to learn, 45% was not a loss rate, it was total losses. That's what happens when a small fleet of aircraft that is no longer in production bears the burden of operating in the most lethal ant-aircraft environment yet experienced. You can't point to anything in particular that made the airplane "junk" because you have no understanding of the airplane or the mission. The F-105 was withdrawn from combat because it was out of production and losses could not be replaced. More F-4s were shot down over Vietnam than F-105s, which probably makes it 'double-junk' in your mind. The F4 was not withdraw from combat because unlike the 105 it was still in production and its losses could be replaced. It is that simple, yet obviously beyond the understanding of someone who wants to talk smack rather than learn.
2
@ImpendingJoker Nobody was talking about refitting existing F-16s into XLs, they would have been all new airplanes if produced. They would have been more expensive than the F-15E, had more development risk, and offered no performance advantage over the F-15E. A new fighter-bomber was needed quickly, but the XL was not needed.
2
The F-20 had great acceleration, but that's not what it shows here. Stop making stuff up. It was not too slow to fly, any jet can pull the nose vertical, and you are probably comparing a normal mil power touch and go with an afterburner demo maneuver.
2
@heyfitzpablum It's always a contest with you trolls.
2
@ManOfChaiTea No, it was not. But I hope you held on to your Northrop stock anyway.
2
@ManOfChaiTea I don't know where you get your facts. The F-20 was not faster, did not have longer range, and carried half the bomb load. The F-16C was nearing production as the F-20 was being marketed. Almost everybody wanted the F-16 because it was the sensible choice for any country that could place overall long-term utility ahead of paying maybe 10% less on a less capable fighter. You can don a tinfoil hat and rant about 'politics' all you want, but air forces around the that world voted with real dollars understood their needs better than you do. I know you will want to continue arguing but I've had enough.
2
@kenneth9874 High octane fuel was huge progress, but it was not unique to the Merlin, and its benefits were available to any engine that used it. The Merlin, due to its inherent design, was successfully powering British fighters on 87 or 89 octane before the supply of 100 octane became available, and if 100 octane fuel was never created it would have still been one of the most successful engines of the war. So yeah, get real. You don't really have anything to support your original statement about the U.S. being responsible for the success of the Merlin, and I'm not interested in being distracted by conspiracy theories about Model 332 Lightnings and Martlets, so have a nice day.
2
Not sure what you are trying to say. The F6F needed a successor because its speed and climb performance was not enough. The F4u didn't need a successor, it was its own successor and went to the next war in which neither the F6F or the F8F participated. Of all of them I would prefer to fly the F8F, but it was a later design and should have been "better".
2
@briancooper2112 A small number of F-5As were sent to Vietnam and flown by US pilots as a test program to see how they would do in the ground attack role.
2
It would have bee a cool plane to fly but was not really a massive technical triumph. Aircraft of similar performance had already been built, or cancelled because of an unjustifiable expense-to-need ratio. The RAAF had already chosen the superior and less expensive F-111 by the time the TSR2 was rightly cancelled. The Tornado had less range and came along a decade later.
2
@jacktattis You don't seem to understand the meaning of service ceiling if you think that means something, which gives me a clue as to why you don't understand that the F6F, while a good airplane, was not up to the performance of contemporary U.S. fighters. At high altitude the P-47 had more horsepower, more speed, and more sustained maneuvering potential. This is what matters in combat.
2
USAF already had the F-16. There was no place for the F-20. That would have been acquisition malpractice.
2
@rogerjohnson6676 Later variants of airplanes usually get heavier then previous variants, not lighter. In this case the J was a later model that had some armament removed and might have been lighter than the H, which was not a lightweight version of the plane. None of this supports your statement. I wouldn't be trying to defend misinformation gleaned from a YT video.
2
@JoD-tz8ez No, the Horten dream of a turbojet/rocket power flying wing was a completely different concept and never intended to fulfill the Amerikabomber specification. That would have been completely ludicrous, and unlike you Horten knew better. You apparently have no idea of what it takes to make an airplane with intercontinental range. The Silbervogel suborbital glider was an earlier concept for a craft that could strike America. The Amerikabomber project considered it and rejected it out of hand because it was impractical and could not fulfill the mission profile. There was no way anybody could build a supersonic bomber with intercontinental combat radius. Even a subsonic one would be extremely difficult.
2
@JoD-tz8ez It's obviously too hard for you to comprehend that just because a person or two had a crazy theory for a suborbital glider doesn't mean it was EVER a contender for the Amerikabomber program. It was not. There was absolutely zero possibility of a supersonic Amerikabomber, and everybody knew it then and knows it now. Try to grasp the reality.
2
@Idahoguy10157 You also don't see the Navy or Marines buying the A-10, even though Marine Air exists to support Marines on the ground. The Navy got rid of all its A-1 Skyraiders during the Vietnam war while the Air Force was operating them, and the Navy and Marines have delivered CAS with fast jets ever since. Why didn't they also get a low and slow A-10? Because they know better and have a better lobby. Edit: “The A-10 was not designed to operate off of a ship”. The A-10 could have easily been modified to operate off a ship, or had such features included at its inception, had the Navy had the slightest interest in this supposedly premier CAS platform. They were not interested in spending a dime on it, for good reason. If the F-35 can exist in three versions, the A-10 could far more easily have existed in two versions. The fact that the F-35 is operated by all three services works against your point, not for it. “In Naval Aviation there was the A-4 and the A-7 and the AV8 Harrier”. These are all fast jets, not low and slow jets like the A-10. USAF was operating the A-7 when it was forced to develop the A-10 because the A-7 was supposedly not good enough, and the A-10 eventually replaced the A-7. If one accepts the story that the A-10 was needed for CAS, then the Navy and Marines were demonstrably not interested in providing CAS, while USAF was. Given that CAS is the core role of Marine Air, they obviously thought the fast movers were fine. You might also consider that countries around the world lined up to buy the F-15, USAFs most expensive, sophisticated, and tightly controlled fighter, while nobody was asking for the relatively inexpensive, unsophisticated, and loosely controlled A-10. No other country built the equivalent of the A-10, not even Russia, which built many aircraft that were outwardly close copies of U.S. aircraft. The Russians came closest with the SU-25, but that airplane is actually closer to the A-7 than the A-10, and as such more versatile.
2
let's try this You also don't see the Navy or Marines buying the A-10, even though Marine Air exists to support Marines on the ground. The Navy got rid of all its A-1 Skyraiders during the Vietnam war while the Air Force was operating them, and the Navy and Marines have delivered CAS with fast jets ever since. Why didn't they also get a low and slow A-10? Because they know better and have a better lobby. “The A-10 was not designed to operate off of a ship”. The A-10 could have easily been modified to operate off a ship, or had such features included at its inception, had the Navy had the slightest interest in this supposedly premier CAS platform. They were not interested in spending a dime on it, for good reason. If the F-35 can exist in three versions, the A-10 could far more easily have existed in two versions. The fact that the F-35 is operated by all three services works against your point, not for it. “In Naval Aviation there was the A-4 and the A-7 and the AV8 Harrier”. These are all fast jets, not low and slow jets like the A-10. USAF was operating the A-7 when it was forced to develop the A-10 because the A-7 was supposedly not good enough, and the A-10 eventually replaced the A-7. If one accepts the story that the A-10 was needed for CAS, then the Navy and Marines were demonstrably not interested in providing CAS, while USAF was. Given that CAS is the core role of Marine Air, they obviously thought the fast movers were fine. You might also consider that countries around the world lined up to buy the F-15, USAFs most expensive, sophisticated, and tightly controlled fighter, while nobody was asking for the relatively inexpensive, unsophisticated, and loosely controlled A-10. No other country built the equivalent of the A-10, not even Russia, which built many aircraft that were outwardly close copies of U.S. aircraft. The Russians came closest with the SU-25, but that airplane is actually closer to the A-7 than the A-10, and as such more versatile.
2
The F8F was a completely different airplane. A family resemblance does not make it merely a result of fine tuning. The F8F intentionally sacrificed many of the F6F's supposed virtues in order to be significantly different and provide outstanding performance.
2
@soulsphere9242 It continues to amaze me how people latch on to myth and misinformation and then refuse to accept actual facts when presented with them. It seems to be related to social media and the internet becoming the predominate form of information exchange for the masses. It's ironic that internet was projected to make us smarter because all the information in the world would be easily accessible, but it seems misinformation is what multiplies and spreads like disease.
1
@carlpboyer Ater transfer to NASA "the F-16XL-2 had its engine replaced with the more powerful General Electric F110-129.[12][37] It achieved limited supercruise, a design goal of the F-16XL that was never attained in ETF testing, when it reached Mach 1.1 at 20,000 feet (6,100 m) on full military power." A paltry Mach 1.1 is not meaningful supercruise considering the conventional F-16 could already sustain a very high transonic Mach number in mil power. The cranked arrow wing experiment did not deliver much of a difference.
1
@carlpboyer 20,000 ft is indeed a fairly low altitude for Mach speeds, and the reason it was fastest there that was that even the more powerful engine did not have sufficient un-augmented thrust to break Mach at higher altitudes. Calling Mach 1.1 supercruise is kind of pitiful and it did not meet the expectations of the original program. As I said, this is not much faster what a regular F-16 could do and is therefore insignificant in terms of air combat tactics.
1
@carlpboyer Was what specifically called out? In any case I don't have the testing data, I just referring to numbers available online in places like Wikipedia.
1
@RedTail1-1 I don't get my info from Wikipedia. I don't have to make an argument because I know what the facts are, and I don't care if you don't want to accept them. Just go away because I'm not interested in debating another video gamer who thinks he understands military aircraft.
1
Easier to fly is not superior, unless you are buying an airplane for a weekend-only pilot. For a fighter plane superior speed, climb, and dive are superior. The hottest airplane are never the easiest to fly, but they still make them as hot as they can get away with for a reason.
1
@flutter8712 The F4U was harder to fly than a Bearcat -- so what? The Bearcat was not mentioned, so what the heck has that got to do with what I said? Everybody knows the Corsair was harder to land on a carrier than the F6F. Does that somehow invalidate my statement that the hottest airplanes are not the easiest to fly? Do you have any logical point at all?
1
@johnw5761 You are as clueless as they come with no hope of becoming informed, but for the benefit of others who want to learn, 45% was not a loss rate, it was total losses. That's what happens when a small fleet of aircraft that is no longer in production bears the burden of operating in the most lethal ant-aircraft environment yet experienced. John5761 can't point to anything in particular that made the airplane "junk" because he has zero understanding of the airplane or the mission. The F-105 was withdrawn from combat because it was out of production and losses could not be replaced. More F-4s were shot down over Vietnam than F-105s, which probably makes it 'double-junk' in his mind. But the F4 was not withdraw from combat because it was still in production and losses could be replaced. It is that simple, yet obviously beyond the comprehension of someone who just wants to talk smack rather than learn.
1
Yes, because it is hardly "unstoppable".
1
@thomasking4136 Both those myths are completely false. Both airplane were on the drawing board before those enemy airplanes were seen by Grumman.
1
@heyfitzpablum "Loiter" capability is always the first refuge of those extolling the alleged virtues of the A-10. It is not the most important virtue of an aircraft, but what makes you think the SU-25 has insufficient capability in that regard? Probably talking points from the A-10 fan club. Big wings cut both ways. The slow speed of the A-10 handicaps its ability to rapidly respond to calls for support when it is not already overhead. In the modern history of CAS this this happened more often than ground units being assign aircraft to loiter overhead just in case they need support at some time. (Few YouTube fans seem to know that the F-104 actually did some CAS in Vietnam, where it was praised for its fast response when called for.) Anyway, none of that is related to the point I made, which is that the SU-25 is suitable for more missions than CAS, which is all the A-10 is suitable for (when in a permissive environment). The SU-25 is the more versatile aircraft, closer along the capability spectrum to the A-7, while the A-10 is closer to the A-1.
1
@heyfitzpablum Why don't you give up instead of just throwing more smoke to disguise your failed argument. You have fooled no one.
1
You seem to be one of the few who noticed that. The video even said the F4U flew more air to ground sorties than the F6F, so comparing their air to air kill ratios is not an indicator of which was best at air to air combat. There is no question the F4U outperformed the F6F, and more importantly enemy aircraft by a more significant margin.
1
@jacktattis His point is that by doing more air to ground sorties than the F6F the F4U encounter less air to air fighting. That means comparing kill totals even on a per sortie basis does not reliably indicate which aircraft was better at air combat.
1
@jacktattis Not as "good"? I'm sure the F6F was 'gooder' at certain things, such a pilot forward visibility, carrier landing, and slow speed turn radius. That does not change the fact that the F4U had superior performance.
1
You have it backwards. The F35A was 'pushed through' because it is the airplane the USAF needs. The A-10 retirements are needed to make more room for it. And you have not kept up with events. The A-10 is scheduled for retirement. The pork barrel politicians in Congress finally had to give way to common sense.
1
Yeager was paid to sell the airplane. It may have been the best fighter he ever flew, but it was still inferior to the F-16.
1
Water injection was NOT based on technology from captured Japanese Zeros. Come on man, where do you get this stuff.
1
"Spoken like a progressive" Huh? "Most means inferior" Huh?
1
@kenneth9874 Can you be more specific? Other than the American thin-wall bearing technology used under license by Vandervell I can't think of a direct transfer of engine technology to RR that made the Merlin a success. I seem to recall that Packard fitted the V-1650 with a pressure carburetor which was an improvement over Miss Shilling's orifice, but I think most would argue that by then the Merlin was already into its own as a very successful engine. Of what do you speak?
1
@kenneth9874 High octane fuel was not specific to the Merlin, and one might argue that it was a Frenchman (Houdry or something like that?) who pioneered the method American companies used to produce the high-octane fuel, but there is no question the Merlin and many other allied engines took advantage of it. I already mentioned the pressure carburetor, which was an improvement, but as I said I think most would say the Merlin was already successful when that improvement was implemented. According to my reading the 2-stage supercharger of the Packard V-1650 was patterned off the one in the Merlin 61. Are you saying the Merlin 61 supercharger was patterned off the F4F's Pratt & Whiney R-1830? That is a claim I have not encountered previously.
1
@kenneth9874 Yes, I know it was a pet project of Jimmy Doolittle at Shell. Look deeper into the methods of mass producing the fuel. Not that it matters in the context of making the Merlin a success, because it made all engines that could use more octane more powerful, not just the Merlin. The Merlin would have still been a very competitive engine if all ran on less octane. What about the 2-stage supercharger? Are you saying the Merlin 61 copied that from P&W 1830?
1
@kenneth9874 "without American high octane fuel and other technology the merlin would have remained a mediocre under performing loser" That is not a fact, it is your opinion, and it is ignorant. Technology crossed the Atlantic in both directions, both with regard to engines and fuel. And while Packard did indeed make useful improvements to the Merlin, it was never “a loser”. That’s just a dumb inflammatory statement. Your black and white judgments on everything shuts out true understanding. You seem to have a lot of misconceptions floating around in your head. For example, you think the absence of turbosuperchargers on the Model 332 Lightnings the British ordered was due to some sort of nefarious political or legal issue, or perhaps the U.S. didn’t want to share the “secrets” of the turbos. The reality is that the British Purchasing Commission intentionally ordered them that way. But why? The Brits had large qualities of P-40s on order, and they wanted the engines in the 332 to be same, meaning all rotate to the right and not have a turbosupercharger attached. They did not want the logistic complication of a second type of engine. They were also aware that the shortage of turbos was restricting production of U.S. aircraft, and they desperately wanted these aircraft as soon as possible. Furthermore, they did not plan to employ these airplanes in high altitude escort or interception. They were expected to be employed along with the P-40s on order, which were also not high-altitude fighters. This order was placed during the ‘phony war’ prior to the Battle of Britain, when air combat so far had been conducted at low and medium altitude. They had no operational experience with turbos and didn’t want exposure to complications that might interfere with operational readiness. If you don’t believe these facts don’t try to argue with me, just go to Page 45 of Warren Bodie’s book on the P-38 and argue with him. I let you pull me off topic just to demonstrate that your crude opinions have no foundation. With that I am done reasoning with you. Have a nice day and goodbye.
1
Of course it's not age that makes an airplane obsolete, advances in technology make an airplane obsolete. The A-10 has been obsolete for some time.
1
It may not have been the best all around "airplane" in all things, but there is no question the F4U was the better "fighter" for combat due to its superior speed and climb. Superior speed and climb always come with a cost, and the F4U was more difficult to handle, but I'm sure pilots going up against tough opposition would choose it. The F6F was lucky it went up against Japanese aircraft that were usually inferior to it, so its speed and climb were good enough to dominate.
1
@jacktattis As I said in another response, I don't know where you are getting your data, but it is different than the data I have seen.
1
@jacktattis I'm not going to get into slicing and dicing different sources with your three separate comments on this. Bottom line is that the very first F4U broke 400 MPH, and the F6F never did.
1
@RJM1011 “The people I worked with at Boscombe Down said the TSR2 was the BETTER aircraft even when they had the F111's there from the USA in the 1980's.” It seems I’m supposed to accept that as an unbiased opinion by a group with a vested interest the TSR 2. Forgive me if I ask exactly why the TSR was BETTER. Was it: Better speed (faster)? No Better rate of climb? No. Better service ceiling? No. Better range? No. Better (greater) bombload? No. Better avionics? We’ll never know what might have been, but we do know the F-111 actually flew automated low-level at night in the weather operationally. The FB-111 version even had an astro tracker navigation system. Better as in safer and easier to fly and more flexible to operate from various runways under various operating conditions? Not bloody likely with that wing. The weak sisters on YouTube who pillory the F-104 for its high wing loading (as if that’s always a bad thing) would be distressed to hear that the TSR2 wing loading even as a prototype approached that of a late model F-104, and exceeded that of the F-105, which the F-111 was designed to replace. The 105 could already lift more than the TSR2, and the 111 could lift much more off shorter runways and take it further. All I can assume is that you guys thought the TSR2 was BETTER simply because it was British.
1
@RJM1011 “The people I worked with at Boscombe Down said the TSR2 was the BETTER aircraft even when they had the F111's there from the USA in the 1980's.” It seems I’m supposed to accept that as an unbiased opinion of a group with a vested interest the TSR 2. Forgive me if I ask exactly why the TSR was BETTER. Was it: Better speed (faster)? No Better rate of climb? No. Better service ceiling? No. Better range? No. Better (greater) bombload? No. Better avionics? We’ll never know what might have been, but we do know the F-111 actually flew automated low-level at night in the weather operationally. The FB-111 version even had an astro tracker navigation system. Better as in safer and easier to operate from various runways under various operating conditions? Not bloody likely. The weak sisters on YouTube who pillory the F-104 for its high wing loading (as if that’s always a bad thing) would be distressed to hear that the TSR2 wing loading even as a prototype approached that of a late model F-104, and exceeded that of the F-105, which the F-111 was designed to replace. The 105 could already lift more than the TSR2, and the 111 could lift much more off shorter runways and take it further. All I can assume is that you guys thought the TSR2 was BETTER simply because it was British.
1
@RJM1011 “The people I worked with at Boscombe Down said the TSR2 was the BETTER aircraft even when they had the F111's there from the USA in the 1980's.” It seems I’m supposed to accept the opinion of a biased group with a vested interest the TSR 2. Forgive me if I ask exactly why the TSR was BETTER. Was it: Better speed (faster)? No Better rate of climb? No. Better service ceiling? No. Better range? No. Better bombload? No. Better avionics? We’ll never know what might have been, but we do know the F-111 actually flew automated low-level at night in the weather operationally. The FB-111 version even had an astrotracker navigation system. Better as in safer and easier to fly and more flexible to operate from various runways under various operating conditions? Not likely with that wing. The ill-informed YouTube viewers who pillory the F-104 for its high wing loading (as if that’s always a bad thing) would be distressed to hear that the TSR2 wing loading even as a prototype approached that of a late model F-104, and exceeded that of the F-105, which the F-111 was designed to replace. The 105 could already lift more than the TSR2, and the 111 could lift much more off shorter runways and take it further. I have to assume they thought the TSR2 was better simply because it was British.
1
@RJM1011 “The people I worked with at Boscombe Down said the TSR2 was the BETTER aircraft even when they had the F111's there from the USA in the 1980's.” It seems I’m supposed to accept the opinion of a biased group with a vested interest the TSR 2. Forgive me if I ask exactly why the TSR2 was BETTER. Was it: Better speed (faster)? No Better rate of climb? No. Better service ceiling? No. Better range? No. Better bombload? No. Better avionics? We’ll never know what might have been, but we do know the F-111 actually flew automated low-level at night in the weather operationally. The FB-111 version even had an astrotracker navigation system. Better as in safer and easier to fly and more capable of operating from various runways under various conditions? The YouTube viewers who pillory the F-104 for its high wing loading (as if that’s always a bad thing) would be distressed to hear that the TSR2 wing loading even as a prototype approached that of a late model F-104, and exceeded that of the F-105, which the F-111 was designed to replace. The 105 could already lift more than the TSR2, and the 111 could lift much more off shorter runways and take it further. I have to assume they thought the TSR2 was better simply because it was British.
1
That claim is completely untrue. Water injection was well know before the war even started, so there was no need to wait for a captured Japanese airplane from which to copy the technology. The Japanese were not ahead of the rest of the world in engine technology.
1
Nil.
1
USAF had to replace the wings of its T-38s quite often and eventually had Northup provide stronger replacement wings. They often suffered over-G during training. At lot of them were twisted from asymmetric over-G. Part of preflight was to tap on the wing to detect if the skin was delaminating from the honeycomb core.
1
The B-36 was not heavier than the B-52.
1
@rogerjohnson6676 No I didn't, and if it said the B-36 was heavier than the B-52 it was wrong. Just look it up yourself instead of believing a YT video.
1
@LukaDeRoche-v3q No, that is not the whole point, that is beside the actual point. The Amerikabomber program was not akin to the V1 and V2 and other so-called wonder weapons, it was as achievable as the B-36, which is the only reason it was mentioned here. The Amerikabomber was a concept in the conventional arena, and nobody is saying it wasn't taken seriously. Germany could not make it work for their purposes, at least not without a closer staging base such as the Azores. But what cannot be taken seriously is the fanciful claim that they ever intended such a bomber to be supersonic. That is a completely ludicrous flight of fancy by overenthusiastic fanboys.
1
@Idahoguy10157 There is no logic in your comment. “The A-10 was not designed to operate off of a ship”. The A-10 could have easily been modified to operate off a ship, or had such features included at its inception, had the Navy had the slightest interest in this supposedly premier CAS platform. They were not interested in spending a dime on it, for good reason. If the F-35 can exist in three versions, the A-10 could far more easily have existed in two versions. The fact that the F-35 is operated by all three services works against your point, not for it. “In Naval Aviation there was the A-4 and the A-7 and the AV8 Harrier”. These are all fast jets, not low and slow jets like the A-10. USAF was operating the A-7 when it was forced to develop the A-10 because the A-7 was supposedly not good enough, and the A-10 eventually replaced the A-7. If one accepts the story that the A-10 was needed for CAS, then the Navy and Marines were demonstrably not interested in providing CAS, while USAF was. Given that CAS is the core role of Marine Air, they obviously thought the fast movers were fine. You might also consider that countries around the world lined up to buy the F-15, USAFs most expensive, sophisticated, and tightly controlled fighter, while nobody was asking for the relatively inexpensive, unsophisticated, and loosely controlled A-10. No other country built the equivalent of the A-10, not even Russia, which built many aircraft that were outwardly close copies of U.S. aircraft. The Russians came closest with the SU-25, but that airplane is actually closer to the A-7 than the A-10, and as such more versatile.
1
@Idahoguy10157 Your comment contains no logic. “The A-10 was not designed to operate off of a ship”. The A-10 could have easily been modified to operate off a ship, or had such features included at its inception, had the Navy had the slightest interest in this supposedly premier CAS platform. They were not interested in spending a dime on it, for good reason. If the F-35 can exist in three versions, the A-10 could far more easily have existed in two versions. The fact that the F-35 is operated by all three services works against your point, not for it. “In Naval Aviation there was the A-4 and the A-7 and the AV8 Harrier”. These are all fast jets, not low and slow jets like the A-10. USAF was operating the A-7 when it was forced to develop the A-10 because the A-7 was supposedly not good enough, and the A-10 eventually replaced the A-7. If one accepts the story that the A-10 was needed for CAS, then the Navy and Marines were demonstrably not interested in providing CAS, while USAF was. Given that CAS is the core role of Marine Air, they obviously thought the fast movers were fine. You might also consider that countries around the world lined up to buy the F-15, USAFs most expensive, sophisticated, and tightly controlled fighter, while nobody was asking for the relatively inexpensive, unsophisticated, and loosely controlled A-10. No other country built the equivalent of the A-10, not even Russia, which built many aircraft that were outwardly close copies of U.S. aircraft. The Russians came closest with the SU-25, but that airplane is actually closer to the A-7 than the A-10, and as such more versatile.
1
@Idahoguy10157 Your comment contains no logic. “The A-10 was not designed to operate off of a ship”. The A-10 could have easily been modified to operate off a ship, or had such features included at its inception, had the Navy had the slightest interest in this supposedly premier CAS platform. They were not interested in spending a dime on it, for good reason. If the F-35 can exist in three versions, the A-10 could far more easily have existed in two versions. The fact that the F-35 is operated by all three services works against your point, not for it. “In Naval Aviation there was the A-4 and the A-7 and the AV8 Harrier”. These are all fast jets, not low and slow jets like the A-10. USAF was operating the A-7 when it was forced to develop the A-10 because the A-7 was supposedly not good enough, and the A-10 eventually replaced the A-7. If one accepts the story that the A-10 was needed for CAS, then the Navy and Marines were demonstrably not interested in providing CAS, while USAF was. Given that CAS is the core role of Marine Air, they obviously thought the fast movers were fine. You might also consider that countries around the world lined up to buy the F-15, USAFs most expensive, sophisticated, and tightly controlled fighter, while nobody was asking for the relatively inexpensive, unsophisticated, and loosely controlled A-10. No other country built the equivalent of the A-10, not even Russia, which built many aircraft that were outwardly close copies of U.S. aircraft. The Russians came closest with the SU-25, but that airplane is actually closer to the A-7 than the A-10, and as such more versatile.
1
@Idahoguy10157 YouTube keeps is deleting my response to your comment that the A-10 was not designed to operate of a ship, so I am going to add it to my previous comment and see if that sticks. Now that comment is gone. I cannot respond to Idoguy's claims. If anybody knows why YT does this with an inoffensive comment, please let me know.
1
@Idahoguy10157 “The A-10 was not designed to operate off of a ship”. The A-10 could have easily been modified to operate off a ship, or had such features included at its inception, had the Navy had the slightest interest in this supposedly premier CAS platform. They were not interested in spending a dime on it, for good reason. If the F-35 can exist in three versions, the A-10 could far more easily have existed in two versions. The fact that the F-35 is operated by all three services works against your point, not for it. “In Naval Aviation there was the A-4 and the A-7 and the AV8 Harrier”. These are all fast jets, not low and slow jets like the A-10. USAF was operating the A-7 when it was forced to develop the A-10 because the A-7 was supposedly not good enough, and the A-10 eventually replaced the A-7. If one accepts the story that the A-10 was needed for CAS, then the Navy and Marines were demonstrably not interested in providing CAS, while USAF was. Given that CAS is the core role of Marine Air, they obviously thought the fast movers were fine. You might also consider that countries around the world lined up to buy the F-15, USAFs most expensive, sophisticated, and tightly controlled fighter, while nobody was asking for the relatively inexpensive, unsophisticated, and loosely controlled A-10. No other country built the equivalent of the A-10, not even Russia, which built many aircraft that were outwardly close copies of U.S. aircraft. The Russians came closest with the SU-25, but that airplane is actually closer to the A-7 than the A-10, and as such more versatile.
1
@markymarknj Who cares about slightly faster scramble time. The F-20 was comparable to, but not better than the F-16, with less range and much less bombload. Air forces of the world with less cash to spend than the US voted for the F-16. Bye.
1
@markymarknj Bye*2
1