Comments by "Gort" (@gort8203) on "Found And Explained" channel.

  1. I've seen this inaccurate explanation of ground effect in more than one place recently. It is not a "bubble of air" under the wing. As the wing encounters ground effect and is maintained at a constant lift coefficient, there is a reduction in the upwash, downwash, and the tip vortices. As a result of the reduced tip vortices, the wing in the presence of ground effect will behave as if it were of a greater aspect ratio, resulting in less induced drag. For the wing in ground effect, a lower angle of attack is necessary to produce the same lift coefficient or, if a constant angle of attack is maintained, an increase in lift coefficient will result.
    14
  2. SCAMP was original purpose of the XL, not multirole combat. You don't supercruise and maneuver at supersonic speed when lugging bombs under the wings. The emphasis on bombing came later when the design was repurposed and entered in the Enhanced Tactical Fighter competition, was was won by the F-15E. The video omits the fact that the XL didn't really achieve supercruise until it was later given a more powerful engine by NASA. It also doesn't mention that the XL was inferior to the production F-16 in subsonic high G maneuvering due to greater energy bleed.
    13
  3. The KC-97 was an outgrow of the B-29 design and had a straight wing with typical radial engine nacelles. The 367-80 did not borrow engine pods mounted below the wing on pylons or a swept wing from the KC-97. You could have said the -80 borrowed these features from the B-47 if you applied any diligence at all to your research, so I stopped watching after these ludicrous statements.
    13
  4. If I had a dollar for every video claiming an aircraft should not have been cancelled I could have my own helicopter. The Cheyenne faced as much competition from the A-10 as it did from the Cobra. The problem with the Cheyenne was not just developmental issues and cost, but that fact that it was seen as encroaching into the roles of fixed-wing ground attack aircraft. The Cobra was a genius move by Bell and was so cost-effective that it is still flying today. The A-10 was simpler and less expensive than the Cheyenne, and the 30mm gun gave its proponents room to claim is was the more cost-effective solution to the Fulda Gap problem. The AH-64 that came along later did not overreach and try to take roles and budget away from fixed-wing aircraft, which is why it got the green light.
    11
  5. Actually, a barrel roll is always conducted under positive G. I've done hundreds of them in jets and never pulled less than 1G. If you had zero G on the airplane it would simply roll on its axis and not fly a helical flight path describing a barrel.
    10
  6. The funniest thing about the TSR-2 myth is that the majority of internet fanboys who think the wing loading of the F-104 somehow made it too dangerous to fly and unsuitable for the low-level strike role also think the TSR2 that was much heavier with equivalent wing loading was the perfect design for the job. What follows is an edit added in response to a comment below from @sergarlantyrell7847. I’m suggesting the TSR 2 would have been just as (supposedly) “tricky” to fly, if not more so. It not only had high wing loading (which in itself is not everything), but also a highly swept delta wing, which places the airplane deep into the backside of the power curve during approach and landing. I’m not the one who thinks this is “a problem” ; It’s a feature of the airplane configuration that the pilots of jets like the F-106 also coped with, even though it made them less forgiving than the F-104 on approach. I get a kick out of people who think the takeoff and landing speeds of the first Mach 2 fighter were too extreme, but they have no idea of the landing speeds of contemporaries such as the F-101 and F-106, or the Concorde airliner for that matter. The wing of the F-104 was not problematic. It was a straight wing, and they had well-known characteristics. Lockheed chose it instead of a delta because of its superior lift properties at subsonic speed, while still providing low drag at Mach 2 due to its span and thickness. The pitch-up characteristic was not due to the wing, but to the tail, and it was not unique to the F-104. The F-101 had the same pitch-up characteristic even though it had a completely different wing planform. (Heck, everyone also seems to think the F-100 “Sabre Dance” was a pitch-up due swept wings stalling from the tip first.) The pitch-up occurred well outside the useful flight envelope of the F-104, and the plane had a stick pusher to keep the pilot from going there. The F-104 did not have particularly dangerous flight characteristics in comparison to its contemporaries. It was obviously a poor glider, and its early accident rate was due to engine problems. Its accident rate in German service was due to training and operational issues. They would have crashed just as many F-105s if they had bought that airplane instead. So, I’m not suggesting the TSR-2 should have been canceled due to its flight characteristics, I’m just saying it's ironic how many think the F-104G should have been cancelled for that reason. The TSR2 was properly cancelled because it was too expensive and behind its contemporaries in development. It was obsolete on its first flight.
    9
  7. Yeah, so no other airplane ever used a delta wing. The wings don't even have the same planform. Get real.
    7
  8.  @mightymightyenapack2530  You talk like a child. You have the knowledge of a child if you think the Rapier was copied off the Arrow. Grow up.
    7
  9.  @badguy1481  Yes, that would be a very bad barrel roll, but then you are the Bad Guy. I don't think Tex would have even contemplated stopping and pushing inverted while rolling the Dash 80. My point of course, is that keeping positive G during barrel roll is normal and is not difficult.
    6
  10. Good comments.
    5
  11. You're right, that USAF was against the Cheyenne, but it was not silly. The helicopter was planned to have performance close to a fixed wing aircraft and would encroach on the roles of fixed wing aircraft. At the same time the Air Force was developing the A-10 to support the Army in those roles. The proper use of aircraft on the battlefield can be argued about all day, and was a conflict within the Army long before the Air Force became a separate service. In this case the Cheyenne was going take food out of the USAF rice bowl, and the rice supply was limited by Congress.
    4
  12.  @garydownes2111  And those prejudices are propagated by constant parroting by the unknowing that simply accept as fact the first thing they hear on most any subject.
    4
  13. Yeah, so no other airplane ever used a delta wing. The wings don't even have the same planform. Get real.
    4
  14. What design influence? These two aircraft have very little in common. Delta wing vs swing wing. No horizontal tail vs a big tail, separately podded engines vs grouped engines. No bomb bay vs multiple bomb bays. Separate tandem crew positions vs conventional multi-place cockpit.
    4
  15. No they aren't. You are thinking of the T-37 with the centrifugal compressor J-69 engine. The A-37 had the J-85 which is a relatively quiet engine.
    3
  16.  @Mk1Male  I designed an airplane once. It would have been fast, but it never left the drawing board. I don't expect it to get credit as an airplane, especially as one that was "faster than anything ever built".
    3
  17. Yeah, so no other airplane ever used a delta wing for a high speed high altitude aircraft. The wings don't even have the same planform. Get real. These two jets were developed around the same time, but the US just had the sense to cancel theirs as being too expensive and unneeded.
    3
  18.  @ZETH_27  Ironic, but telling, that you are incapable of appreciating that we are discussing the echo chamber inhabited by internet fanboys. But at least you are eloquent.
    3
  19.  @GrantvsMaximvs  Long thin fuselage describes most high-speed aircraft, as it is a basic aerodynamic principle rather than a styling cue. What you call a dorsal hump is not an actual dorsal hump like aircraft such as the A-4M have, it is simply the cockpit being elevated to provide view over the nose as in most aircraft, such as the B-17. Realistically speaking the swing wing is fundamentally and dramatically different in appearance, function, and performance compared to the delta wing of the B-58. Sorry, but the B-58 did not influence the design of the B-1 any more than any other previous aircraft did.
    3
  20.  @anonymousarmadillo6589  And you must be the guy they ask to do something when they don't really care if it gets done right.
    3
  21.  @georgekingiv8171  You are correct. Like most YouTube videos, this one is just repeating BS the creator has seen on other videos.
    3
  22.  @CitrusAnarchy  I hope you are joking.
    3
  23. The B-1 was designed to penetrate at low level in a high-low-high profile. It was a much heavier airplane with much longer range. The B-58 simply didn't have the necessary range when flown at low level. It also didn't have the all-weather-terrain following systems that did not exist when it was developed.
    3
  24. Wow, you have bought that myth lock stock and barrel. Its easy to research that the MiG was not the faster of the two. It was also not the more maneuverable of the 2 depending on what part of the envelope you were in. Have you compared the E-M diagrams of the two planes?
    3
  25. This is just another in the growing series of YouTube videos that judge every imperfect airplane, tank, or doctrine of the past a failure. Useless? The people making these videos don't know squat about what was possible and what was useful back then.
    2
  26.  @FoundAndExplained  Not everybody needs to make videos, and too many of you are doing it already. Unfortunately not very well most times.
    2
  27. Well, the Tiger moth actually flew and is still flying. This never did.
    2
  28.  @dmitry4c996  Inductive resistance? Sounds like an electrical thingy, not an aerodynamic thingy. You guys are amazing. I copied and pasted that from the section on ground effect in "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators", an accepted reference text on aerodynamics.
    2
  29.  @kingblob17  You guys are amazing. I copied and pasted that from the section on ground effect in "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators", an accepted reference text on aerodynamics.
    2
  30.  @cadetkohr5508  You think pointing out a gross factual error is aggression? Resisting misinformation is aggression? Oh my god what a delicate snowflake you must be.
    2
  31.  @haydenchu58  You will spoil his fantasy with such facts.
    2
  32. Area rule did not help the airplane cruise at Mach 2. Area rule reduces drag in the transonic range and helps an airplane accelerate through that drag rise. Once the plane is fully supersonic area rule has done its work. The Mach 2.5 F-15 doesn't even have area rule because it has so much acceleration is doesn't need it.
    2
  33. Amen
    1
  34. And one doesn't even need superficial knowledge of history to make a video on YouTube. All one need do is set text from Wikipedia to pictures, if one bothers to do that much research before making a video on a subject known only because it was seen in another video. People here think the Nazis invented the liquid fuel rocket and have never even heard of Robert Goddard.
    1
  35. No, it makes no sense.
    1
  36.  @Mk1Male  The Lightning was actually an airplane, unlike the Vickers 559, which was just an idea that was not developed. The point here is that proposals do not count as if they are worthwhile.
    1
  37.  @Mk1Male  LOL. That's not quite what I said, but go ahead and twist it any way you like if it makes you feel better. The Vickers 559 was obviously not worthwhile, as proven by history, but many in the comments here are drooling over it as if it changed the course of aviation. Hilarious.
    1
  38.  @Mk1Male  The Concord was an actual airplane, not a mere design proposal that never left the drawing board, so it is hardly an example that supports bestowing credibility on a proposed design like the Vickers 559. I'm not changing my reasoning, you just can't accept it, so just move on and have a nice day.
    1
  39.  @Mk1Male  You're hilarious. I express an opinion that is a value judgement rather an objective fact, and you decree that I'm "wrong". You want "evidence". Get real, there is no evidence. You can have a different opinion, but you don't get to make up rules of evidence when you disagree with my value judgement. What the hell would your evidence be? That's right, you have no evidence, you just have an *opinion*. Can you accept that it's "wrong"? You really make me laugh. But I've had enough of being lectured at the 5th grade level, so have a nice day.
    1
  40. It wasn't faster than anything. It never existed.
    1
  41.  @kingblob17  It's not responsibility to know and compensate for the fact that you are mentally challenged. Perhaps you should just consider withholding nasty comments about things you don't understand.
    1
  42.  @dmitry4c996  You expect me to educate you? Not my job. I gave you a sliver of education about ground effect and you rejected it out of hand. Perhaps you went to one of those schools that did not require reading and research assignments.
    1
  43.  @dmitry4c996  Well, that's not what you said. But no need for further noncommunication on this.
    1
  44.  @kingblob17  Not my job to compensate for your lack of mental faculties. If you don't understand aerodynamic terms perhaps you should not comment on the subject. At least try Google before making an inane comment.
    1
  45.  @jonshellmusic  You may be using the new math, because it is not just about the wingtip vortices and the downwash stuff is not only relevant to helicopters.
    1
  46.  @jonshellmusic  The disruption of the flow of upwash and downwash around a wing in ground effect is what causes the flight characteristics known as Ground Effect for a FIXED WING AIRPLANE. It certainly is relevant to pilots of such aircraft. You don't seem to even know what upwash and downwash are in relation to a wing. Perhaps your training has been narrowly focused, in which case you should not be expressing opinions beyond the scope of your knowledge.
    1
  47.  @jonshellmusic  Wow, three separate retorts. I must have stuck a nerve. Sorry to identify your lack of expertise, but you made it necessary by doubling down on it. You are the one who doesn’t understand what you are talking about. You must think learning to fly a helicopter makes you some kind of aero expert? Well, even though my flying experience far exceeds yours I don’t claim to be an aero expert, which is why I quoted an authoritative source on this subject. But I am a retired military and airline pilot and instructor, who has flown everything from props to supersonic and four-engine jumbo jets. The training I both gave and received did include ground effect and other effects of downwash from the wing. You continue to argue from a position of ignorance and blame me for arguing. That’s called projection, but you can stop doing it. Since you won’t stop arguing I will stop it for you. Bye.
    1
  48.  @jonshellmusic  LOL! Way to try to weasel out of accepting failure. I hope you're better at music than you are at aviation.
    1
  49.  @jonshellmusic  I didn't say you are stupid, even though you are desperately trying to prove that you are. Your failure is in pretending to know more about ground effect than a known aerodynamics textbook, and being utterly unconvincing at it. I guess you think a decent person should let you win your arrogantly inaccurate argument. Give it a break.
    1
  50.  @jonshellmusic  No, your failure was in arrogantly pretending to know more about ground effect than an aerodynamics textbook. Accept responsibly for your actions instead of trying to deflect by blaming me for not being nice enough to you. Since you want to talk about behavior, you should realize that you project your arrogance on to others and still expect to be coddled when they don't accept it. You don't know what you are talking about, and you should try to deal with it instead of blaming others.
    1