Comments by "Gort" (@gort8203) on "Sandboxx" channel.

The B-2 did not enter service in the 1980s. The prototype first flew in July 1989, the first production aircraft was delivered to Whiteman AFB in December 1993, and it did not reach IOC until January 1997.
106
 @hypervious8878 By the minute might be more useful for some purposes, but fuel flow gauges have historically been calibrated per hour and everybody is used to working that way.
8
@Gravel1331 Always glad to meet someone else who cares about accurate information.
8
@twoknife Afterburners provide more thrust with increasing speed. Turbojets provide more power with increasing speed. So in general, I think it would not be unexpected that total fuel flow though the engine increases with speed.
6
@John_Redcorn_ The thing is that no airplane is going to be doing strafing runs in conflict against a capable military power. Low and slow is not survivable. Such a war will bear no resemblance to the war against against poorly equipped tribal insurgencies that has gone on for the last 20 years. Close Air Support had changed already, and in the future will be delivered with precision weapons from a survivable distance. We should be mindful of the fact that that the world "close" in CAS applies to the proximity of friendly and hostile forces, not to the proximity of the delivery aircraft to those forces.
3
Where do you get this stuff? Stated by whom? Maybe by Captain Kangaroo.
3
You should write that as a comic book and maybe Hollywood will buy it as a screenplay.
2
It would have been cost effective to cancel the features necessary for the STVOL version, which buggered up the design.
2
Stealth replaced speed as primary for survivability some time ago. Maybe you are too young to recall the F-117 or the B-2.
2
Maverick didn't fly the F-14D.
2
Yes. Procurement critics are usually against "Gold Plating", except when it can be applied to an airplane they want.
2
It's not an AWAC; it's an AWACS.
2
You seem to think every system that is not selected for production is automatically better than what was produced. You need to take a breath and get real. No military can buy every system proposed, and not every system proposed is the best solution to operational needs.
2
A 747 cruise missile carrier didn't make much sense back in the Carter years and makes less sense now. The concept was to deter or fight a nuclear war, and there were even problems in that venue, such as putting too many eggs in one basket. Concentrating rather than dispersing the deterrent force makes it vulnerable to counterforce attack, plus loss of a single plane means loss of much more striking power than loss of a smaller conventional bomber. Such a plane is also not as useful and flexible in conventional operations the way actual bombers are. Cruise missile are not the infantryman's best friend. Expensive cruise missile are for deep strike on heavily defended high value targets, and much less expensive PGMs are dropped from USAF bombers on enemy forces engaged with friendly infantry. The B-21 is smaller than the B-2 because you don't need to carry as many tons of modern munitions. The 747 was not the way to go then and still is not now.
2
No news here. Ever pilot knows the difference between how fast an airplane is allowed to go and how fast you can get it to go. How fast it "really is", is not the same as how fast it might go under some conditions.
1
@LRRPFco52 There you go, looking behind the curtain!
1
I do not advocate this concept proposed by this video, but they would not be civilian airliners or even look like them. There have long been plenty of military planes that are based on what started as civilian airline or business transport. Countries don't scramble fighters or launch SAMs based on what they think an intruding aircraft looks like.
1
The A-10 is the past. The F-35 is the future. Which do you think the U.S. needs more if it has to fight a modern battle. I know what the USAF, USN, and US Army think, and it's not what you think.
1
@sailingonasummerbreeze7892 Yes, it's not actually not unreasonable to design an airplane to perform more than one role when the basic airframe characteristics are suited to both roles. The F-111 airframe could actually have worked for the original intent, which was long range tactical strike for USAF and long endurance fleet defense for the Navy. Both roles required a large twin engine airplane with VG wings. But when the Navy realized it needed the same aircraft to perform air superiority as well as fleet defense they withdrew from the program because it was too late to make the F-111 a dogfighter. The F-35 airframe would likely be more efficient it didn’t include compromises for the VTOL role. I think the airplane is masterfully achievement considering that its transformer like ability was previously the stuff of fiction, but I don’t think it should have been done, because I think we needed the best CTOL airplane we could get rather than another VTOL airplane.
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD I didn't come to the conclusion, I am merely "parroting" a conclusion that I've read in multiple places. My observations of YouTube comments indicates that's what they are for--the dissemination of unsubstantiated opinion. You could do us all favor by bucking that trend, and substantiating your own unsubstantiated claim that structural arrangements necessary for the lift fan and other VTOL equipment did not reduce the potential efficiency of the airframe.
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD It's all about victory and defeat with you keyboard antagonists. Give me a break from the battle analogies becuse I'm not interested in who wins, only in real information. BTW you don't get to decide how it works, and you haven't disproved the opinion I parroted. A bigger weapons bay and fuel tank may improve payload and range but does not make the airframe more efficient. The opinion I was parroting is based on the airplane structure being larger and heavier than than it would needed if not for the VTOL gear, and it reduces aerodynamic and kinematic performance somewhat. It's an intuitively rational notion that I can accept, and it's not my job to prove it to you. You can prove it's not true if you possess real documented evidence, and I would love to see it, becuse I don't give a crap about defeating you.
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD You're all about confrontation rather than discussion. You can call me stubborn (look in the mirror) and falsely accuse me of pretending to be an expert, but that does not prove your long list of unsubstantiated opinions is more correct than the one I parroted. I'm not interested in arguing them or your misunderstanding of what "proving a negative" means, so have a nice day. Maybe a cup of chamomile tea will help you relax.
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD Actually, I suggested some nice herbal tea. But there's an idea -- maybe you should actually pound sand, if that will help release your stress. You're rambling all over about my behavior and my "claims", but I have zero interest in your litany of bogus charges against me. The next thing you hear will be the sound of one voice arguing.
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD Oh, it’s “scathing” criticism! You really are just a bit too full of yourself. Maybe you would do better to present proof that the common view I repeated is incorrect, but you actually haven’t done that, you’ve just presented distracting factoids that don’t disprove anything. Many (including this very video) see logic in the view that the VTOL requirement greatly increased the difficulty in developing the F-35, or that the airplane could have been more efficient structurally and aerodynamically without it. They don’t call it Fat Amy for nothing. I think they did an amazing job meeting all these requirements, but meeting fewer requirements would have likely streamlined both the development and the final airframe. You’re entitled to a disagree, but you’re not entitled to pompously and “scathingly” tell others they can’t comment as they wish.
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD The point is that if you didn't need the space and structure for the VTOL equipment the airplane could have been smaller/lighter/more slippery. I have read more than once that the compromises necessary for the for VTOL version affect the potential of the airplane even when they are not installed. Imagine a version of the Harrier with the rotatable nozzles and other equipment necessary for VTOL stripped out of it. It would have been able to carry more fuel or payload, but it would still be a slower and less efficient airplane compared to what would have been possible if it had not been designed for VTOL. I think the only reason you can't accept this is because you assume I'm an F-35 hater, and therefore your opponent in the ongoing internet fanboy wars over the airplane. But now that we have them I'm actually all for more F-35s, and for parking A-10s to use those funds to support them, just like USAF wanted. However, that doesn't blind me to the fact that it could have been an even better airplane, and developed sooner, if the design hadn't had to shoulder the burden of accommodating a VTOL version, which I think was the seminal misstep of the program. I would have asked for a different airplane that would have been even better, and available in greater numbers' again just like USAF originally wanted.
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD First of all, I consider you to be the "hack" not those writing the more considered opinions I have read, so get off your pompous high horse, and trying reading more for yourself. You don't appear to understand the nature of airframe efficiency. Of course when if you make an airplane larger it increases it's range and payload, but that doesn't make it more efficient. You talk as if range and payload don't cost anything, but if they didn't we wouldn't have the F-5 or the F-18, would we. Why did they build the F-16 when they already had the larger F-15 of greater range and payload? The F-16 was not as capable as the F-15, but it did have a more efficient airframe and was more cost effective for its intended role. You seem to be completely unaware that the JSF was originally intended as a lower cost complement to the F-22 in the way the F-16 was to complement the F-15. It's obviously a waste of my time to try to make you to see what I'm talking about. My only intent now is to have you cease your "scathing criticism" of my original comments, and drop your claim that I have no right to them unless I can justify my opinions to a greater degree than you can justify your own. My final words are please just take your self righteous pompous ass elsewhere.
1
@williamhudson4938 High speed does force more air into the engine. What the compressor face doesn't like to see is supersonic flow. The purpose of variable ramps and spikes is to control the position of the normal shock wave so that it remains within the inlet but forward of the compressor face. Air downstream of the shock is subsonic and therefore at higher static pressure and density. This is why subsonic planes don't need these devices.
1
You are right. Reciting numbers fills up the space in the video and sounds authoritative even when the narrator has no clue if they mean anything. It seems the purpose of most YouTube videos is to draw in and entertain the uniformed. Clicking of likes and positive comments is the metric rather than the knowledge imparted.
1
Seems unlikely that a single Genie could not destroy a mass formation of Soviet bombers because there is no reason to fly bombers in mass formation in the post WWII nuclear era. You only fly bombers in a mass formation when you need to lay down a mass pattern of conventional HE bombs. In a nuclear attack bombers would probably attack dispersed targets singly. It's a big sky, so the Genie relied on a large blast radius to increase its probability of killing its target by merely getting close to a hit, but it could not be expected to clear the sky of multiple bombers with each shot unless the Soviets were dumb enough to bunch them all together.
1
@danbell3827 I wouldn't say the XL had a "better wing design", I would say it had a different wing design, which was better for the strike role. It was not part of the original design because it was not the best wing for sustained high G maneuvering.
1
Fake history. The XL cranked wing would have made for a better bomber, not a better fighter.
1
AN ICBM was actually launched from a C-5. Like the 747 cruise missile carrier, air launch of ICBMs was another wistful proposal that was correctly not pursued.
1
Absolutely. If the crew of the slow Enola Gay was able to avoid the effects of the bomb it dropped then a high performance fighter could certainly avoid such effects as well.
1
@helifanodobezanozi7689 Please just stop with the widowmaker BS. The F-104 was no more a widowmaker than other high-performance aircraft of the era.
1
You really don't understand the aircraft designations do not describe how they are used in combat. Fighters were once called scouts and then pursuits. Did the F-111, and F-117 ever dogfight? The WWI dogfight you imagine has always been a small part of air to air combat and until relatively recently not a design priority for fighters. Speed was the design priority.
1
@HailAzathoth Of course I watched the video. Do you have a point, or do you just want to express an emotion you can't properly articulate? I see a lot of that in YouTube comments.
1
@HailAzathoth You seem to not understand that I DISAGREE with the key points of the video. Apparently you find them compelling and enlightening, whereas I do not. I'm not one of those people who believes something I see on YouTube just because a "content provider" made a snappy sounding video.
1