PDA

View Full Version : Me262 versus Boeing 727



Blutarski2004
09-27-2008, 09:18 AM
Who would win in a dog fight?

727 has speed advantage.

262 has guns and maneuverability.

JtD
09-27-2008, 09:26 AM
Depends on if the 727 wings are swept for high speed flight or for centre of gravity correction.

Jex_TE
09-27-2008, 09:28 AM
The air hostesses could throw the drinks trolley at it (minus the drinks of course). Then there is the thrust from the engines, wouldn't they be a factor? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tranie117
09-27-2008, 09:33 AM
I think that if the Me262 was in range it would be burnt allive by the jet wash!

Aaron_GT
09-27-2008, 10:25 AM
727 accelerates away. Dogfight over.

stalkervision
09-27-2008, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Who would win in a dog fight?

727 has speed advantage.

262 has guns and maneuverability.

How about a 110? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I have shot down Mig 15's with a 110. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

R_Target
09-27-2008, 02:56 PM
727 need only keep the speed up 'til the Jumos fail. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

HuninMunin
09-27-2008, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Depends on if the 727 wings are swept for high speed flight or for centre of gravity correction.

http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

sw25th
09-27-2008, 03:13 PM
Why the Germans of course.

mortoma
09-27-2008, 09:46 PM
Is the 727 in passenger or cargo configuration?? If in passenger config, there would be a chance that a passenger might try to take a picture of the 262 and if he/she forgot to turn off the flash it might temporarily blind him, giving the pilot of the 727 a huge advantage. Then he could get on the 262s tail and shoot him with the sidearm pilots are now allowed to carry in the USA.

Or if the 262 is on the tail of the Boeing, a flight attendant could dump the contents of the toilets out the back and cover his canopy with the nasty contents. The 727 is old so it does not carry chaff and flares, only, well, you know. The 262 would have to RTB kind of like we have to do when our windscreens get oiled in the game. So the 727 wins hands down.


And no, I have not had anything to drink besides this Mountain Dew........

WTE_Galway
09-27-2008, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by mortoma:
Is the 727 in passenger or cargo configuration?? If in passenger config, there would be a chance that a passenger might try to take a picture of the 262 and if he/she forgot to turn off the flash it might temporarily blind him, giving the pilot of the 727 a huge advantage. Then he could get on the 262s tail and shoot him with the sidearm pilots are now allowed to carry in the USA.

Or if the 262 is on the tail of the Boeing, a flight attendant could dump the contents of the toilets out the back and cover his canopy with the nasty contents. The 727 is old so it does not carry chaff and flares, only, well, you know. The 262 would have to RTB kind of like we have to do when our windscreens get oiled in the game. So the 727 wins hands down.


And no, I have not had anything to drink besides this Mountain Dew........

Well the 727 has a bigger operational range.

Its unfortuante the turrents were removed from the final production version.

Buzzsaw-
09-27-2008, 11:55 PM
Salute

It'd go like this...

The 727 pilot would be an ex-Blue Angel, and he'd sucker the 262 into a low speed scissors, which the 727 wins hands down with its thrust advantage and flaps. The 262 would start to burn out the Jumos trying to stay with it...

And then the yahoo US Marine aboard, pulls out a LAW he smuggled onboard in his backpack, cause he wanted to show the Bubba's back home how to blow up stuff real good... and he opens the emerg exit and nails the Messer...

At least that's the version I see with John Travolta as the pilot and Barry Pepper as the Marine... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

triad773
09-28-2008, 12:30 AM
LoL.... fanciful scenario. One thing that came to mind: location, location, location. In a head on, no chance for the Boeing. Otherwise, speed would be the deciding factor for the Boeing.

Triad

Bremspropeller
09-28-2008, 11:10 AM
Anyone got a Vo/Mo figure for a 727?

Maybe buzzaw1939?

I'd say T/W is about equal, though the 262 might have a higher Gmax (taking an empty 727).
Then again the 727 would outfly any 262.

Tab_Flettner
09-28-2008, 05:12 PM
Depends on if the 727 wings are swept for high speed flight or for centre of gravity correction.

I salute comedy gold.

LEXX_Luthor
09-28-2008, 06:00 PM
727 flies around out of gun range, when 262 gets low on gas, 727 follows 262 back to base and Vulch.

general_kalle
09-28-2008, 06:19 PM
Me262 wins if it can manege to get a headon attack

if the 747 is smart enonugh to avoid that the me262 cant do anything till the engines fail, run out or run out of fuel

if it tries to attack from behind it will be burnt from the jet wash before it gets within range

Fehler
09-29-2008, 06:15 AM
<span class="ev_code_RED">WILLIE</span> Messerschmitt

<span class="ev_code_RED">WILLIE</span> Boeing

Hmmm.... Sounds fishy to me!

WTE_Galway
10-01-2008, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by general_kalle:
Me262 wins if it can manege to get a headon attack

if the 747 is smart enonugh to avoid that the me262 cant do anything till the engines fail, run out or run out of fuel

if it tries to attack from behind it will be burnt from the jet wash before it gets within range

The OP said 727 not 747 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Actually flying close behind a heavy is going to cause flame out or flip you not burn you.

Bit of irrelevant trivia, the 747 has enough surplus power at altitiude to go supersonic but the airframe (especially all the crap that hangs off the wings) isn't up to even transonic flight.

M2morris
10-01-2008, 11:21 PM
727 would dump it's crapper septic tank and leave a big brown spray behind it wich would blind said 262 with a nasty crappy film of doodoo stuff. 727 then speeds away.

Bremspropeller
10-02-2008, 11:44 AM
Bit of irrelevant trivia, the 747 has enough surplus power at altitiude to go supersonic but the airframe (especially all the crap that hangs off the wings) isn't up to even transonic flight.


Quite interesting, as a 747's cruise-speed (M .82 - .86) is well within transonic range.

Most airliners have enough excessive thrust in cruise.

waffen-79
10-02-2008, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Depends on if the 727 wings are swept for high speed flight or for centre of gravity correction.

LMAO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

WIN

thread ended there

M2morris
10-02-2008, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by waffen-79:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Depends on if the 727 wings are swept for high speed flight or for centre of gravity correction.

LMAO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

WIN


thread ended there </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, show me a variable swept wing airliner.
No offense JtD. It's just that a Boeing 727 has/had wings that cannot be adjusted in flight like say an F-111 or a B-1.

WTE_Galway
10-02-2008, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by M2morris:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by waffen-79:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Depends on if the 727 wings are swept for high speed flight or for centre of gravity correction.

LMAO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

WIN


thread ended there </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, show me a variable swept wing airliner. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Boeing had plans for one. The 2707-200



http://www.unrealaircraft.com/classics/images/sst_front.jpeg

M2morris
10-02-2008, 08:09 PM
That plane looks Russian. Like a Flogger on steroids.

WTE_Galway
10-02-2008, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by M2morris:
That plane looks Russian. Like a Flogger on steroids.

nah, the Russians actually had an operational SST in day to day service, the TU144 which was a delta wing aircraft similar in appearance to the Concorde. It was dubbed in the west the Concordski http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.geocities.com/wilfre_orozco/images/tu144.jpg

Another shot of the Boeing concept ...


http://www.unrealaircraft.com/classics/images/sst_pic2.jpeg


Note the Canards probably inspired by the ill fated XB70 bomber project ...


http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/images/content/107274main_XB-70_flight.jpg

M2morris
10-02-2008, 11:29 PM
Nice.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Feathered_IV
10-03-2008, 01:51 AM
The 262 wouldn't even make it off the conveyor belt. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Benjamin_Dover
10-04-2008, 06:33 AM
The cancelation of the Boeing 2707-200 amounts to a national tragedy.
The design specifications were to be a faster
more fuel efficent (per passenger) aircraft
of longer range than the Concorde.
Boeing's 2707-200 also had a far greater payload and sshorter takeoff run as it had a variable sweep wing.

Ben

Jaws2002
10-06-2008, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
The 262 wouldn't even make it off the conveyor belt. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Good old days. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Enforcer572005
10-06-2008, 09:54 AM
What if God and Superman got into a fight? Huh? Hey, it could happen........
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I started not to look at this, but glad i saw the SST stuff. You can thank Senator Proxmire for his "vision" in halting govt. assistance to Boeing to get the plane going.

The same politico that opposed ALL military AC production during his long and damaging stay in the US senate. The same guy that fought the F-14 tooth and nail by saying that aircraft carriers weren't needed (The Brits were so successful in that concept) and that it would destroy itself when it fired its gun because the engines would quit.

He still kept getting re-elected.

I think the Soviet design was a total failure. After one crashed at the Paris airshow in the late 60s, it just kinda disappeared from service. You couldn't even find photos of it or any mention of it in the Soviet press or aviation publications at all for several yrs.....or so I thought.

That shot above has it with current Rusn flag and a US flag. Have they restored one? What's the deal? Did one visit the US recently? I was kinda shocked to see that.

Jaws2002
10-06-2008, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by Enforcer572005:

That shot above has it with current Rusn flag and a US flag. Have they restored one? What's the deal? Did one visit the US recently? I was kinda shocked to see that.


"In July, 1983 this aircraft was designated as "101" and established 14 world records. These records were including a height of flight of 18,200 m with payload from 10 to 30 tons, average speed of 2,031.55 km/h on a closed circuit of 1,000 km and 2,012.26 km/h on a closed circuit of 2,000 km.
When the TU-144 program was cancelled, CCCP-77114 was used as research aircraft in experiments about the radiation in top layers of the atmosphere, ozone layer, thermal influence in different materials and studies on aerodynamics. In 1990 was placed in nonflyable storage.

In 1993 08-2 was chosen to serve as testbed in a joint program between Tupolev, NASA and others US firms. The aircraft suffered an extensive modification that included the power plant, former Koliesov RD-36-51A engines were replaced by Kuznetsov NK-321 (engines of the TU-160 bomber). The new model was designated TU-144LL Flying Laboratory.

The first flight of TU-144LL was on November 29, 1996 and a total of 27 flights were realized until the end of the program in 1999."

http://perso.wanadoo.es/tu144sst/fleet/08-2.html