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

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. The German Amerikabomber was never going to be supersonic. That is ludicrous.
    10
  5. "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
  6. Not crazy, logical. It was a very different airframe, would have been expensive, and was not needed. The correct choice was made.
    7
  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
  8. Or it suggests that they each worked for different times, purposes, and places.
    7
  9. 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
  10.  @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
  11.  @toomanyuserids  And the P-47 was the best at high altitude, where it completed outclassed the F6F. Tools for purposes.
    6
  12.  @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
  13. 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
  14.  @SoloPilot6  And they still had more capability than brand new F-20s.
    6
  15. 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
  16.  @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
  17.  @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
  18. Only an opportunity to spend more money for less capability than the F-15E.
    5
  19.  @JohnyRodriguez-n3p  The A-37 did a lot better at what, penetrating North Vietnam air defenses to bomb heavily defended targets. Get real.
    4
  20.  @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
  21. 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
  22.  @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
  23. ​ @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
  24. ​ @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
  25. ​ @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
  26. I wasn't made then, there were only two prototypes that failed to sell the concept. No reason to build it now.
    4
  27. "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
  28. 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
  29.  @heyfitzpablum  I guess you don't realize when you are arguing. Glad to now see you agree with me.
    3
  30. It was not petty politics, it was geopolitics, and it was not superior to the F-16.
    3
  31. That's why the video intentionally ignores the earlier versions and states it is only discussing the Merlin equipped versions.
    3
  32.  @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
  33. 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
  34. The airplane probably didn't last much longer than 25 hours in combat anyway.
    3
  35.  @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
  36.  @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
  37. 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
  38.  @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
  39.  @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
  40. USAF already had a fighter like that called the F-16, which also had longer range and twice the bombload.
    3
  41.  @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
  42.  @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
  43.  @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
  44.  @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
  45.  @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
  46. 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
  47.  @heyfitzpablum  It's always a contest with you trolls.
    2
  48.  @ManOfChaiTea  No, it was not. But I hope you held on to your Northrop stock anyway.
    2
  49.  @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
  50.  @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