PDA

View Full Version : Will the P-80 OWN the Me262 in FB?



XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 10:20 AM
Will the P-80 OWN the Me262 in FB?
Just wondering since the P-80 is a vastly superior aircraft what to expect when these two finally meet?
And what is the weaponry on the P-80?


<CENTER>http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p837.jpg
<CENTER>><FONT COLOR="blue">Please visit the 310thVF/BS Online at our NEW web site @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER>A proud member Squadron of IL-2 vUSAAF
<CENTER>310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 10:20 AM
Will the P-80 OWN the Me262 in FB?
Just wondering since the P-80 is a vastly superior aircraft what to expect when these two finally meet?
And what is the weaponry on the P-80?


<CENTER>http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p837.jpg
<CENTER>><FONT COLOR="blue">Please visit the 310thVF/BS Online at our NEW web site @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER>A proud member Squadron of IL-2 vUSAAF
<CENTER>310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml

Zayets
08-22-2003, 10:25 AM
Depends who's flying it. Actually depends who's flying both planes./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Zayets out

http://www.arr.go.ro/iar81c.JPG

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 10:29 AM
To be honest, they are very close. The P-80 will have a slight edge in manuverability and speed, Me-262 in firepower. It will depend on the pilot, but the P-80 will have a slight edge.

Gib

I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 10:52 AM
the p80 being a newer plane should have a edge agaisnt the me262 in jet vs jet, tho the me262 will be far better against all the props and bombers, because of its firepower with the high closure rates u need to downt those props on one pass.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 10:58 AM
One other thing you not considering is the fact the Me-262 is a Roman Candle when hit by small rounds. The P-80 was VERY TOUGH, and could take direct hits to the engine without loosing it. If you fail your pass in a Me-262, you run the risk of overshooting and being hit by your prey with a few rounds. This is deadly to a Me-262, but nothing more then an annoyance to a P-80. Also the concentrated power of 6 .50 cals in the nose will help a LOT. It will be able to down anything less then a FW-190 or a bomber in 1 well aimed pass no problem. The P-40 has some great hitting power in convergance, and thats with the rounds spread out quite a bit. The P-38 was legendary for being able to tear a fighter in half with its firepower, yet it only had 1 20MM and 4 .50 cal. ITs called concentrated firepower. Sure. 4 30MM's are nice, if you can land them. Last I checked, those Mk-108's have a NASTY spread and tend to foul up aim quite a bit.

Gib

HellToupee wrote:
- the p80 being a newer plane should have a edge
- agaisnt the me262 in jet vs jet, tho the me262 will
- be far better against all the props and bombers,
- because of its firepower with the high closure rates
- u need to downt those props on one pass.
-


I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 12:14 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- One other thing you not considering is the fact the
- Me-262 is a Roman Candle when hit by small rounds.

Yes - the engines seem very fragile, and are also
rather exposed to fire.

- with its firepower, yet it only had 1 20MM and 4 .50

That's the equivalent (equating one 20mm to 3 .50s,
which is about the going rate) of 7 .50s, which puts
it up there close to the P47, and a little ahead of
the P40 or P51, even before its advantage of having
nose concentrated firepower is taken into account.
So I wouldn't preface the firepower with the P38 with
'only'!

I wonder how the P38 would have been with the originally
planned 4 .50 and 1 23mm masden, or some of the earlier
armaments with 4 .50 and 1 37mm? (Basically the P39Q1's
armament, with no sychronisation ROF reduction, and all
in the nose)?

- cal. ITs called concentrated firepower. Sure. 4
- 30MM's are nice, if you can land them. Last I
- checked, those Mk-108's have a NASTY spread and tend
- to foul up aim quite a bit.

4 30mm should be enough to hit with if you practice.
It's quite a fair ROF in total. The problem will probably
be the less than ideal trajectory, and compensating for
that at various ranges with a high closing speed.
Alternatively you can just wait for the last moment
and pump out a short burst, which would mean that you
are firing in the flat part of the trajectory. Two hits
should, on average, down most fighters, so you can afford
to fire point blank and still down the enemy. Of course
you have to then make sure you don't HIT the enemy! In
1.0 (last time I took the 262 up) the 30mm seemed a bit
anemic, though, but on the 109K4 which I have tried out
with 1.1b the 30mm seems much improved.

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 04:05 PM
The b1 does now badly but who knows


http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 04:24 PM
The airframe of the Me-262, was absolutly superior to anything the allies had for years ahead but,


The engines where its strong and its weak point(s)

The engines gave the initial great speed but, where very fragile and had a short life expectation because Germany didn't have any good heat resisitant materials and no (mechanic) fuel conputer so, the throttle should be handled with great care. I think the last point is not as bad in FB as I always imagined.

Anyways, the Americans builded the P-80 and it was less-advanced, less powerfull, less destructive the the me-262 but, If Gibbage says it had a slight edge in speed and manoeuvrebility, I believe him.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 05:03 PM
Platypus_1.JaVA wrote:

-
- The engines gave the initial great speed but, where
- very fragile and had a short life expectation
- because Germany didn't have any good heat resisitant
- materials and no (mechanic) fuel conputer so, the
- throttle should be handled with great care. I think
- the last point is not as bad in FB as I always
- imagined.
-
-

The 004 had a fuel management control device. Above 6000rpm the throttle could be moved as fast or as slow as the pilot wanted to move the lever.

During engine runup, the throttle is to moved >>sharply<< back to the "idling" postion with no petering out of the engine. No mention of massive flames noted.

Further, engine rpm of 4500 to 6000 should make the a/c move(depending on ground conditions).

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 05:36 PM
This thread reminds me of how the P-47 was going to show up and OWNZ JOO all of the other fighters in FB. HeHe.



<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 05:41 PM
S!
The Gloster Meteor will http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

-------------------------------------
Luftwaffe Brasil
Força e Honra!

]http://www.erichhartmann.hpg.com.br/newbo.gif (http://www.erichhartmann.hpg.com.br/newbo.gif[/img)

LBR=Hartmann in HL

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 05:49 PM
Instead of setting yourself up for the inevitable disappointment that will come when the P-80 doesn't quite own the Me-262, you might start thinking about how you're going to deal with the faster and more nimble He-162 in your fantasy US jet in WWII combat scenario.


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 06:20 PM
FW190fan
lol you Luft~Chickens Crack me up! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Cuz..i deal with 262's all the time in FB and down them in prop jobs. ie p-39's & p-40's. So basically the Overrated Me 262 ain't seet. I'm sure that it'll only get easier with the p-80 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


<CENTER>http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p837.jpg
<CENTER>><FONT COLOR="blue">Please visit the 310thVF/BS Online at our NEW web site @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER>A proud member Squadron of IL-2 vUSAAF
<CENTER>310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 06:28 PM
I see flames in the future of the 262, when the P-80 shows up../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

25th_Buzz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 06:59 PM
Well, the early P-80's apparently were slightly faster and more manueverable, but the 30mm cannons on the 262 will pack a much bigger punch. It will depend on the pilots.

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 07:11 PM
Lol Copperhead, looks to me like you need to start flying against some experienced competition instead of Hyperlobby noobshttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif




<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 07:15 PM
when it comes to jet vs jet combat i find it depends on who sees who first. an me-262 will likely take out a p-80 on one pass, where as a p-80 wont necessarily take out an me-262 on one pass. even if an engine catches fire, the me-262 is still capable of fighting.

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 07:15 PM
I do like the funny cartoons though.


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 07:26 PM
First off one 20mm is not, NOT the equal of three 50's, maybe two. The P-38 and 80 will be more effective when fired from the nose instead of wing mounts.

The P-80 is a little faster and a little more agile than the 262, but the 262 has much more (all be it slower firing) guns. In Jet combat the edge goes to the P-80, it will be close in the end and pilot skill will determine the fight.

With the 162 and 229 enroute Jet servers are going to be a real fun place to be.

<HR WIDTH=100% ALIGN=CENTER SIZE=2>
<font color="red">
Cardinal
Staffel Adjudant Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"
7jg77 (http://7jg77.com)
<font color="blue">

CO
92nd FG
92ndFG (http://92ndFG.com)
<center>http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 07:41 PM
I predict that with the proper catalyst, this could be a very long thread:

Not only will the never-saw-combat-day-late-and dollar-short-P-80 fneb be incapable of pwnage WRT the 262, it will have it's arse handed to it on a platter by the faster and more nimble He-162 "Volkjeager".

And what's more, the P-80 driver will yet again be forced to look on in utter humiliation and contempt as yet another superior Teutonic monstrosity, the Go-229 makes it eat jet fumes while flying higher and faster.

So, despite all desperate attempts to find aircraft to model to try and ease the pain of German technical superiority, those who fly the one-step-behind inferior P-(insert appropriate number here) fighter are foiled once again as those who fly Luftwaffe(the only way to fly) laugh at their collective angst.


============


In other news, Gibbage is now taking donations to model the F-86 Sabre in an attempt to redress the balance.


Enjoy! And, Regards,

FW190fan
Commanding Officer VJG/26 Screaming Luft-Chickens



P.S. - for those of you with little or no sense of humor, the above post, while basically true, was made partially in jest.



<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 07:45 PM
Luftwaffe snob ! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ;D /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:00 PM
Well the 229 never saw the light of day so what the F kind of leg does that argument hold 190boy?

So, you'll get your 229 but we counter that with:


http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f84tj.htm



<HR WIDTH=100% ALIGN=CENTER SIZE=2>
<font color="red">
Cardinal
Staffel Adjudant Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"
7jg77 (http://7jg77.com)
<font color="blue">

CO
92nd FG
92ndFG (http://92ndFG.com)
<center>http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php/)</center>

Message Edited on 08/22/0303:01PM by Cardinal25

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:06 PM
Good one Card. When the LW see this. You better hide.


http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f84b-1.jpg


25th_Buzz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:09 PM
Deutchland Ueber Alles!


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:13 PM
Can I bring my MiG now?

http://prototypes.free.fr/ye8/images/ye152a_5.jpg



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:13 PM
Well its quite a match...

The airspeed advantage goes to the P-80 at low altitudes, altough it seems the 262 was as fast at medium, and faster at high altitudes. The P-80 develops max. speed at SL, above that its speed falls back. Climb should be pretty similiar, here the differences in best climb speed could make difference.

In turning and handling, the 262 will have an edge. It has swept wings, thinner airfoils and most importantly, automatic leading edge slats on the whole leading edge. They add greatly to stall characterisitcs, just like on the 109, which was able to outturn planes with similiar or somewhat lower wing loading.

Durability... its mixed again. The 262s engines will be definietely more vulnerable, being of touchy axial flow design, compared to the less advanced, but tougher centrifugal jet in the P-80. Altough I bet P-80 jet engine will be still more fragile than piston engines in the game, and theres only one engine, and cant rely on the other one if one is knocked out.
On the other hand, the 262s airframe is very much more rugged, large parts were made of of steel, as well as the pilot was heavily armored, unlike the P-80 which was primarly made of light alloy.

In terms of roll rate, the P-80 will have a significant advantage, at all speeds and altitudes.

Firepower... hehe, no contest here. Maybe 6x.50 will make good jet engine smokers, but not much else. They are just too weak for a single pass kill, especially with the great closoure rate with jets.. the MK108 on the other hand will finish off any fighter with a single or two hit in v1.1, and ironically the spreading even helps you to score that single hit. You pretty much have a big bad shotgun in the nose. In turns, you just point it well in front of him, and pull the trigger. One of them will hit for sure, it works great for the 109, and I bet doing it with 4 times as many guns certainly won`t worsen chances.

Pilot`s view will be similiar, except for the rear, in which the 262 will be better, as it has a transparant armored glass there.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:15 PM
Time for the improved Meteor, the F.4 with its 590mph top speed and 4 20mm cannons./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

It is going to be interesting how the high speed handling of the Horton will be modelled since, afaik, it never did any high speed flights. Did it, anyone??

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:18 PM
You take that one Huck. I'll take this one.

http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/pictures/f-15.jpg


25th_Buzz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:18 PM
FW190fan wrote:
- Deutchland Ueber Alles!

Which proves that you are not thinking logically.

<HR WIDTH=100% ALIGN=CENTER SIZE=2>
<font color="red">
Cardinal
Staffel Adjudant Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"
7jg77 (http://7jg77.com)
<font color="blue">

CO
92nd FG
92ndFG (http://92ndFG.com)
<center>http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:20 PM
Hey, I already caught me a Cardinal and a Buzz-ard. Hmmm... went fishin' and caught me a couple of birds.




<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:21 PM
50's engine somkers? Ha!

A very slanted review but I should have know it would be coming from you Isgrin.

<HR WIDTH=100% ALIGN=CENTER SIZE=2>
<font color="red">
Cardinal
Staffel Adjudant Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"
7jg77 (http://7jg77.com)
<font color="blue">

CO
92nd FG
92ndFG (http://92ndFG.com)
<center>http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:22 PM
Fw190

Huh? I didn't respond to any of your posts.

25th_Buzz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg



Message Edited on 08/22/0312:23PM by BuzzU

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:24 PM
FW190fan wrote:
- Hey, I already caught me a Cardinal and a Buzz-ard.
- Hmmm... went fishin' and caught me a couple of
- birds.

That is a lame exit from this argument. You loose than *pow* you say you are trolling, nice one but only n00b's will fall for it.

<HR WIDTH=100% ALIGN=CENTER SIZE=2>
<font color="red">
Cardinal
Staffel Adjudant Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"
7jg77 (http://7jg77.com)
<font color="blue">

CO
92nd FG
92ndFG (http://92ndFG.com)
<center>http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:25 PM
Buzz your A-10 seems surprised and scared. Take a look/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:26 PM
Crap, this is turning into a LOMAC thread real quick.

Back on topic:

The US couldn't even implement swept-wing technology during WWII and had to get their jet engine from the British!

Please discuss.


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:27 PM
The way the energy model of the 262 is currently, the answer is yes, the P-80 would trash it.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin - 1755

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:28 PM
*yawn* All we need know is Hell's toupee in here whining about how 50's are garbadge and the Spit "rulz" da sky.

discuss:

<HR WIDTH=100% ALIGN=CENTER SIZE=2>
<font color="red">
Cardinal
Staffel Adjudant Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"
7jg77 (http://7jg77.com)
<font color="blue">

CO
92nd FG
92ndFG (http://92ndFG.com)
<center>http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:31 PM
Huck,

The A-10 is for your tanks. The F-15 is for the rest of what you have.

Although now that I think about it. The A-10 should have no problem with a 262../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

25th_Buzz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:31 PM
Hey, don't get mad at me because the Germans has better aircraft during WWII.

Get mad at the Germans!


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:34 PM
And I just so happen to like Hell2pee. He's from NZ you know.


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:36 PM
I don't get mad at them. I just shoot them down../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

25th_Buzz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:40 PM
Is LOMAC gonna have an A-6 Intruder?

Cos, why do a modern sim at all without an A-6 Intruder?


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:42 PM
I do like that Frogfoot thingy the Russkies have though.


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:44 PM
Cardinal25 wrote:
- *yawn* All we need know is Hell's toupee in here
- whining about how 50's are garbadge and the Spit
- "rulz" da sky.
-
- discuss:
-
-

Excellent. Seriously, well said and spelled bro.

"I find your lack of brains disturbing"
http://ourworld.cs.com/Demolisher%20SWE/signature01.jpg
Former Würgerwhiner extraordinaire

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:44 PM
It all goes back to German technology though, all of it!


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:47 PM
You guys should read your history books. Th P-80's that were in the ETO were only test planes with no armament and very underpowered (engine failures too). They're were only four to start with and only two survied the testing phase. So,to get back to the question at hand.....? lets see thousands of Me-262's against two unarmed P-80's??? Who would win??
Even a ******ed ape can figure that out......

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:49 PM
As Ivan said, jets are for kids.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:52 PM
TX-Bomblast wrote:
- You guys should read your history books. Th P-80's
- that were in the ETO were only test planes with no
- armament and very underpowered (engine failures
- too). They're were only four to start with and only
- two survied the testing phase. So,to get back to the
- question at hand.....? lets see thousands of
- Me-262's against two unarmed P-80's??? Who would
- win??
- Even a ******ed ape can figure that out......

P-80's were sent on at least one combat mission, even the USAAF would not send planes into combat unarmed, thanks but try again please.

<HR WIDTH=100% ALIGN=CENTER SIZE=2>
<font color="red">
Cardinal
Staffel Adjudant Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"
7jg77 (http://7jg77.com)
<font color="blue">

CO
92nd FG
92ndFG (http://92ndFG.com)
<center>http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:52 PM
TX-Bomblast wrote:
- lets see thousands of
- Me-262's against two unarmed P-80's???

Unfortunately for the Luftwaffe they never had thousands of Me 262s available.

I'm just saying.

"I find your lack of brains disturbing"
http://ourworld.cs.com/Demolisher%20SWE/signature01.jpg
Former Würgerwhiner extraordinaire

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:52 PM
Without German jet technology we could all be speaking Spanish right now.

We wouldn't want that, now would we?


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:54 PM
I remember vaguely that in his autobiography, Chuck Yeager mentioned that the Me262 was similar in performance to the P-80. He test flew a lot of captured German planes including the 262.


<center>http://www.assonetart.com/jsGodsgrace.jpg </center><center>/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif The above statue was a gift from France</center>

Message Edited on 08/22/0307:54PM by Heuristic_ALgor

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:54 PM
FW190fan wrote:
-
-
- Without German jet technology we could all be
- speaking Spanish right now.
-
- We wouldn't want that, now would we?
-


Spanish eh?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif



"I find your lack of brains disturbing"
http://ourworld.cs.com/Demolisher%20SWE/signature01.jpg
Former Würgerwhiner extraordinaire

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:57 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Time for the improved Meteor, the F.4 with its
- 590mph top speed and 4 20mm cannons./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
- It is going to be interesting how the high speed
- handling of the Horton will be modelled since,
- afaik, it never did any high speed flights. Did it,
- anyone??
-
<img
- src="http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-s
- tormclouds2.jpg">
-



Actualy it did in 1944 the RLM were so pleased with the results of the gliding trials of the v1 and v2 prototype they ordered 7 more prototypes and 20 production aircraft.

The go229 v2 began its flight testing programme at orienburg in jan 1945. Take off required less than 450m and handling was reported as superb. By early march the landing gear was being retracted and speeds had reached 800km/h (497mph) when the AC crashed on aproach because of sudden faliure of one of the engines. The program advanced no further due to the worsening situation at the wars end...

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 08:59 PM
And for the love of all things good, can we please leave ******ed apes out of this discussion?

They've never done anything to hurt anyone! NOTHING!

Some of them can use sign-language. How many of YOU know sign-language???

Didn't think so!


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 09:07 PM
johno__UK wrote:


- The go229 v2 began its flight testing programme at
- orienburg in jan 1945. Take off required less than
- 450m and handling was reported as superb. By early
- march the landing gear was being retracted and
- speeds had reached 800km/h (497mph) when the AC
- crashed on aproach because of sudden faliure of one
- of the engines. The program advanced no further due
- to the worsening situation at the wars end...


Hmmm...look's like "Warplanes of the Luftwaffe", top right-hand corner of p.94?

Can 497 mph be considered high-speed?




<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 09:07 PM
TX-Bomblast wrote:
- You guys should read your history books. Th P-80's
- that were in the ETO were only test planes with no
- armament and very underpowered (engine failures
- too). They're were only four to start with and only
- two survied the testing phase. So,to get back to the
- question at hand.....? lets see thousands of
- Me-262's against two unarmed P-80's??? Who would
- win??
- Even a ******ed ape can figure that out......
-
-

"Four YP-80As were deployed to Europe in order to demonstrate their capabilities to combat crews and to help in the development of tactics to be used against Luftwaffe jet fighters. YP-80As 44-83026 and 44-83027 were shipped to England in mid-December 1944, but 44-83026 crashed on its second flight at Burtonwood, England, killing its pilot, Major Frederick Borsodi. 44-83027 was modified by Rolls-Royce to flight test the B-41, the prototype of the Nene turbojet. On November 14, 1945, it was destroyed in a crash landing after an engine failure. 44-83028 and 44-83029 were shipped to the Mediterranean. They actually flew some operational sorties, but they never encountered any enemy aircraft. Both of them fortunately managed to survive their tour of duty in Europe, but one of them crashed on August 2, 1945 after returning to the USA. The other one ended its useful life as a pilotless drone."

Of the 4 only one was lost during the war.

I am not going to waste my time lising all the Me262s that crashed because of engine failure.

Oh, thousands of Me262s, is it?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif It was slightly under 1000 Me262s that were accepted by the LW, out of the 1433 that came off the production lines.

Obw, both the British and Americans had axial jet engines in the early '40s. The British even had a fanjet operating in 1943 developed from an axial engine(from 1941). I'll let you do the searching for details since you are so smart./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

------

Issy, do you have speed graphs for the Me262 and the P-80?

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 09:13 PM
Demolisher_ wrote:

- Spanish eh?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


Yes, sometimes I have trouble rolling my Rs and that can be rather embarassing when talking to someone who speaks Spanish (Castillian(?) as their first language.




<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 09:24 PM
But we all know that the Germans had the best fighters during WWII.

Here's the proper ranking, country by country says me:

1. Germany

2. USA

3. Great Britian

4. Russia

5. Japan

6. Italy

7. France

8. Poland (sorry Poles, nothing personal)


Obviously, there is a pretty big gap between #1 and the rest of the crowd. #2 and #3 are fairly close. The rest good but nothing really spectacular. France and Poland are fortunate to even be considered.






<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 09:38 PM
Copperhead310th wrote:
- Will the P-80 OWN the Me262 in FB?

Maybe.. maybe not.

- Just wondering since the P-80 is a vastly superior
- aircraft what to expect when these two finally meet?

Vastly? Superior? That would depend on your definition of superior and than vastly.

- And what is the weaponry on the P-80?

My guess is .50s in that dont think they started toying with 20s until KOREA?




<font size= 3> <font color= blue>
TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 09:46 PM
FW190fan wrote:
-
- johno__UK wrote:
-
-
-- The go229 v2 began its flight testing programme at
-- orienburg in jan 1945. Take off required less than
-- 450m and handling was reported as superb. By early
-- march the landing gear was being retracted and
-- speeds had reached 800km/h (497mph) when the AC
-- crashed on aproach because of sudden faliure of one
-- of the engines. The program advanced no further due
-- to the worsening situation at the wars end...
-
-
- Hmmm...look's like "Warplanes of the Luftwaffe", top
- right-hand corner of p.94?
-
- Can 497 mph be considered high-speed?
-
-

Oh so you have the book too so what is the problem with spending a bit of time answering the guys question?
Did you think i would have people beleive that i pulled that info from the top of my head? next time ill quote the book and page num just to please you.....


Oh i do agree with ur list though...



Message Edited on 08/22/0308:56PM by johno__UK

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 09:50 PM
FW190fan

Looking at your list. I have to wonder how many of those German planes got shot down? I forget. What was that number again?

25th_Buzz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 09:55 PM
tagert wrote:
- Copperhead310th wrote:
-- Will the P-80 OWN the Me262 in FB?
-
- Maybe.. maybe not.
-
-- Just wondering since the P-80 is a vastly superior
-- aircraft what to expect when these two finally meet?
-
- Vastly? Superior? That would depend on your
- definition of superior and than vastly.
-
-- And what is the weaponry on the P-80?
-
- My guess is .50s in that dont think they started
- toying with 20s until KOREA?

Six M2 .50's mounted in the nose, they were replaced by the M3 that had a higher ROF.

<HR WIDTH=100% ALIGN=CENTER SIZE=2>
<font color="red">
Cardinal
Staffel Adjudant Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"
7jg77 (http://7jg77.com)
<font color="blue">

CO
92nd FG
92ndFG (http://92ndFG.com)
<center>http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 10:10 PM
johno__UK wrote:


- next time
- ill quote the book and page num just to please
- you.....


Thanks!


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 10:26 PM
Buzz,

Take Copperhead's logic. He shoots down 12 year olds in Hyperlobby flying 262s while he flys a P-40 and then posts some really funny cartoons about it.

But what does it prove? That the P-40 is superior to the Me262?

What's it going to prove when I fly the Me109F-4 and pop a few noobs flying the P-80 when it becomes flyable? Nothing really, except that I don't have Copperhead's graphics skills and can't post funny cartoons about it.


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 10:54 PM
I thought we were talking about real life?..............Buzz walks away confused.

25th_Buzz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 11:01 PM
Cardinal25 wrote:
- tagert wrote:
-- My guess is .50s in that dont think they started
-- toying with 20s until KOREA?
-
- Six M2 .50's mounted in the nose, they were replaced
- by the M3 that had a higher ROF.

So once again I was correct, Thanks!



<font size= 3> <font color= blue>
TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 11:11 PM
what a heap of period junk........nuff said, should not be here........did not serve in combat, 2 appeared on show but did diddly squat, might as well throw the star ship enterprise in as well, cannot believe this heap is being added, it is not relevent as it wasnt flown in combat and as such is not in a relevent time line.....want to add a jet look at the meatbox, at least that served in combat in ww2.............

you have all this whinging, this dont handle like correct etc, then you try to add an aircraft that never actually made it to ww2, i hope the thing is kicked into touch, i realise the person developing it has spent a lot of time doing it but hell, why bother, just jump a few years and add a phantom, that has the same historical relevence and combat history in ww2 as the pile of junk you are trying to introduce......

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 11:43 PM
BuzzU wrote:
-
- Looking at your list. I have to wonder how many of
- those German planes got shot down? I forget. What
- was that number again?


i just wonder, if BuzzU know that number ?


http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 11:49 PM
I just wonder if he cares?

25th_Buzz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-22-2003, 11:52 PM
ok , you doesn´t know.
but you said it already, you forgot it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 12:20 AM
FW190fan wrote:
- The US couldn't even implement swept-wing technology
- during WWII and had to get their jet engine from the
- British!

And the all-flying tail (according to Bell and
Chuck Yeager, but not Skychimp). Actually externally
the Miles M.52 project (1942-47) bears an amazing
similarity to the Bell X1. Bell visited the M.52
project in 1945 or 46, citing the all-flying tail
as crucial, and thereafter the M.52 was canned apart
from two radio controlled rocket powered versions
that reached Mach 1.5 in 1948. One of these rocket
powered machines was lost when the radio control
failed and it headed out to sea. The other was eventually
scrapped. Not much remains on that project now, sadly,
in terms of photos, etc.

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 01:13 AM
Boandlgramer

Your right. I doesn't know. Do you?


I don't believe you got the point of the question. I'm sure Fw190 did, and that's who I was talking too.

25th_Buzz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 02:12 AM
The YP-80As sent to Italy carried armament. They were there for "accelerated operational service trial." "Service." What that means is unknown.

But it is known that the YP_80As, which did carry armament, flew in the area where the Einsatzkommando Braunegg operated their unarmed Me-262A-1a/U3 recon planes.

What better to test the YP-80A against than unarmed recon planes.

Of course, this is speculation, but definately not out of the realm of possibilities.

==

As far as performance goes, the P-80A exceeded the Me-262 in almost all areas. It was faster at all altitudes, had a better thrust to weight ratio, a higher critical mach, better climb. With its better wing loading, and thrust to weight ratio, it should handily outturn the Me-262. The P-80A roll was nothing short of phenominal, as good as the best that could be produced by the Fw-190.

Regardless, it will come down to the pilot.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 02:15 AM
AaronGT wrote:

- And the all-flying tail (according to Bell and
- Chuck Yeager, but not Skychimp). Actually externally
- the Miles M.52 project (1942-47) bears an amazing
- similarity to the Bell X1. Bell visited the M.52
- project in 1945 or 46, citing the all-flying tail
- as crucial, and thereafter the M.52 was canned apart


Hey porkchop, you've got me mixed up with someone else. I've never discussed the all flying tail on these boards.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 02:21 AM
- FW190fan wrote:
- The US couldn't even implement swept-wing technology
- during WWII and had to get their jet engine from the
- British!

Lol. Your so ignorant, its not even funny. Do you think Germany INVENTED the swept wing? Nay. I think it goes to the french who had swept wings flying in 1921. Do you think the US only played with swept wings AFTER the war, AFTER they captured "super secret" Germen technology YEARS ahead of us? Nay. P-55 Ascender. Yes it failed, but IT HAD SWEPT WINGS!!! They were flying the prototype mockup in 1939!!!!!!!!!

READ THIS!!! US FLYING SWEPT WING FIGHTER IN 1939!!!!!

Well before we got it from Germany.

Also, Northrups flying wing WAS SWEPT!!! FLYING IN 1939!!!!!!!!!!!

So please, shut up about the US stealing swept wings from Germany. It holds no water. It could even be the other way around. When did the Me-262 get its swept wings? 1942? Maybe after seeing spy photo's of the P-55? Im looking forward to your reply. Of course I have said the P-55 swept wing thing many times but everyone seems to gloss over it.

P.S. Put THIS in your tailpipe and smoke it.

http://www.gibbageart.com/images/43.jpg

P-39 test bed with swept wings

I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>



Message Edited on 08/22/0305:28PM by Gibbage1

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 03:02 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:

http://www.gibbageart.com/images/43.jpg


That's a P-63 (called the L-39-2), and a 1946 experiment. Sorry.

NACA aerodynamicist Robert T. Jones independently "invented" the swept wing without German influence. Buesmann (sp?) and Jones were contemporaries.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 03:09 AM
If Oleg fixes the 262s zoom climb rate and energy loss rate, than NO WAY. The 262 will whip the P-80's arse!! 4x 30mm will ruin your day!

http://www.stormbirds.com/warbirds/header.jpg


<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 03:18 AM
Thanks. My book never gave me a date on that. Just said it was a NACA test rig. I new it was before 1947 because of the US markings. But the P-55 still stands hay?

Gib

SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Gibbage1 wrote:
-
http://www.gibbageart.com/images/43.jpg
-
-
- That's a P-63 (called the L-39-2), and a 1946
- experiment. Sorry.
-
- NACA aerodynamicist Robert T. Jones independently
- "invented" the swept wing without German influence.
- Buesmann (sp?) and Jones were contemporaries.
-
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp
-
<img
- src="http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2
- .jpg">
-
-
-



I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 03:33 AM
The P-55 and various Northrop designs.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 03:38 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- The P-55 and various Northrop designs.


Yes, and they all failed. Really something to be proud of.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 03:47 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- SkyChimp wrote:
-- The P-55 and various Northrop designs.
-
-
- Yes, and they all failed. Really something to be
- proud of.



Really. I supposed only someone with your seething hatred of Americans can conclude the Northrop designs were failures. Interesting take.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 03:49 AM
BTW, Huck, I've noticed you've remained quite on the P-80A vs. Me-262 issue. Why?

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 03:58 AM
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/compare.jpg


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 04:17 AM
someone said the p80 had weak guns. six 50s. do you realize what six 50s will do to the 262? lol you only need ONE 50 to take down a 262.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/p47-22.jpg 47|FC=

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 04:21 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Really. I supposed only someone with your seething
- hatred of Americans can conclude the Northrop
- designs were failures. Interesting take.

Nah they had a long and successful service.



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 04:24 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Nah they had a long and successful service.


Still not going to comment on the P-80A vs Me-262 issue?

Not a fun topic when your "math" can't prove the German plane superior, huh?





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 04:25 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- Nah they had a long and successful service.
-
-
- Still not going to comment on the P-80A vs Me-262
- issue?
-
- Not a fun topic when your "math" can't prove the
- German plane superior, huh?


What do you want me to comment?



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 04:28 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- What do you want me to comment?


Well, I know you've been madly poking away at your calculator, grinding your teething, breaking pencil lead, balling up paper, and wiping your forehead trying to figure out how to make the Me-262 look better than the P-80A.

What did you come up with?

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 04:34 AM
LoL Gibbage, way to get pizzed off dude!

I've got to admit, I laugh out loud at roughly 60% of your posts even though you probably aren't even trying to be funny.


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 04:38 AM
There were a lot of German designs that shared a similar fate. The P-55 was just to revolutionary. With the proper powerplant, it could have been a very capable fighter. The reason it failed was because its intended engine failed and that put an engine that was nearly 600HP less. They also fixed the stability issues in later models. So its service reccord cant erase the fact that the US had swept wings well before the war, and WELL before we captured any German examples.

Also, there are more Northrup flying wings from 1939 flying then Me-262's. And P-80's were in service till 1980's. How many original Me-262's do you see today if they were "years ahead of everyone"? The one re-creation Me-262 crashed on its first flight and still has not flow since http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Nice track reccord.

Gib

Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Nah they had a long and successful service.
-
-
-


I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 04:39 AM
hmm, 3 pages and still no concensus. Shame on ya'll, the answer is so simple. The Me 262 will stand unopposed cause the P-80 never saw combat in WW2 and will thus be banned in almost all realistic servers /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif . Sorry Gibbage, my server will have Me 262's and no P-80's. It won't have your Do-335 either.

Edit: almost forgot, it won't have the Go-229 either. Sorry gibbage, you just needed a good flaming /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif . In the post where you announced that you are now working on the Do-335, you claimed that no real planes were left to be modeled. You are mistaken, there are more planes that arn't modeled and arn't in the works than there are flyable. Here are some of them: Pe-2/3, Me 210/410, MC.200, MC.205, Tu-2, Ar-234B, Yak 9M, DB-3, IL-4, R-10, and Su-2.

----------------------------------------
<center>I/JG1 Oesau (http://jg1-oesau.org) is recruiting. Join us!

Stab.I/JG1Death at HL, Maj_Death at Ubi.com

At the start of WW2 the German army lacked experienced anti-aircraft gunners. The average gunner was so bad that the USSR decided to help them out. They did it by forcing some of their pilots to fly I-153 flak magnets. These planes were slow but very sturdy. This allowed German anti-aircraft gunners to get a large amount of target practice on a relatively small number of planes. Thanks to the Soviets help, by the end of the war the German anti-aircraft gunners were amoung the best in the world.
</center>

Message Edited on 08/22/0310:46PM by Maj_Death

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 04:47 AM
He meant no good planes.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 04:52 AM
Pe-2 and Tu-2 are very good medium bombers. And not too many would say the Ar-234B is a bad plane. Nice little jet bomber that none can catch /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif . He wouldn't even have to make any gunner positions for it, cause it had no guns/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif .

----------------------------------------
<center>I/JG1 Oesau (http://jg1-oesau.org) is recruiting. Join us!

Stab.I/JG1Death at HL, Maj_Death at Ubi.com

At the start of WW2 the German army lacked experienced anti-aircraft gunners. The average gunner was so bad that the USSR decided to help them out. They did it by forcing some of their pilots to fly I-153 flak magnets. These planes were slow but very sturdy. This allowed German anti-aircraft gunners to get a large amount of target practice on a relatively small number of planes. Thanks to the Soviets help, by the end of the war the German anti-aircraft gunners were amoung the best in the world.
</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 04:54 AM
Maybe you could model it. Sounds like good projects.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 04:56 AM
Let me prove a point.

Maj_Death wrote:

Pe-2/3
No cockpit data

Me 210/410
Taken, and finished. Only needs rear gunner

MC.200
Dunno

MC.205
Taken. No work started.

Tu-2
No cockpit data

Ar-234B
Taken

Yak 9M
Who the hell needs another Yak

DB-3
No data

IL-4
Nearly complete. Modeler stoped from lack of data and time.

R-10
Dunno

Su-2.
Dunno

Currently the modelers have been thrown into a state of chaous. IL2 Center went down and it was the only thing holding togeather this loose band of modelers, and it was not even doing a good job at that. No orginization, and no updates. Only thing was a forum and mental notes of who has what. I seem to have been seated the task of moving to Netwings.org and re-orginizing everything. We have forums up, and most modelers are now using it, but we are still unorginized till we can get the model database up. Again, Oleg asked for late war aircraft that "at least flew before 1947". If you wanna "keep it real" thats up to you. But your missing out http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gib


-
-----------------------------------------
- <center><A HREF="http://jg1-oesau.org" TARGET=_blank>I/JG1
- Oesau</A> is recruiting. Join us!
-
- Stab.I/JG1Death at HL, Maj_Death at Ubi.com
-
- At the start of WW2 the German army lacked
- experienced anti-aircraft gunners. The average
- gunner was so bad that the USSR decided to help them
- out. They did it by forcing some of their pilots to
- fly I-153 flak magnets. These planes were slow but
- very sturdy. This allowed German anti-aircraft
- gunners to get a large amount of target practice on
- a relatively small number of planes. Thanks to the
- Soviets help, by the end of the war the German
- anti-aircraft gunners were amoung the best in the
- world.
- </center>
-
- Message Edited on 08/22/03 10:46PM by Maj_Death



I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 05:04 AM
Maj_Death wrote:
- Pe-2 and Tu-2 are very good medium bombers. And not
- too many would say the Ar-234B is a bad plane. Nice
- little jet bomber that none can catch .
- He wouldn't even have
- to make any gunner positions for it, cause it had no
- guns


Better take a closer look at the Arado again./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 05:22 AM
Uh, yeah - what Milo said. The Arado 234 had two rear mounted MG/151s.

Other than that all it was was a 460mph, fully aerobatic medium bomber flying around in 1944.


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 05:25 AM
Actually I just saw that thread after posting in this one. But are those modelers actually going to do it or quite as soon as they figure out it will take more than 2 hours to do? Anyways, I found a nice little Pe-2 for Gibbage. Havn't found any cockpit pics yet, but I'm sure there are some floating around somewhere. It would probebly help if I could speak russian so I could navigate the sites instead of clicking randomly. Anyways, this is what a ten minute search turned up. This is a Pe-2 at Manino.
http://oldwolf.myrice.com/ussraircraft/images/Pe2-05.jpg


----------------------------------------
<center>I/JG1 Oesau (http://jg1-oesau.org) is recruiting. Join us!

Stab.I/JG1Death at HL, Maj_Death at Ubi.com

At the start of WW2 the German army lacked experienced anti-aircraft gunners. The average gunner was so bad that the USSR decided to help them out. They did it by forcing some of their pilots to fly I-153 flak magnets. These planes were slow but very sturdy. This allowed German anti-aircraft gunners to get a large amount of target practice on a relatively small number of planes. Thanks to the Soviets help, by the end of the war the German anti-aircraft gunners were amoung the best in the world.
</center>

Message Edited on 08/22/0311:27PM by Maj_Death

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 05:33 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:

- The one re-creation Me-262 crashed on its first flight
- and still has not flow since http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Nice track reccord.
-
- Gib


So you actually think it's funny that an aircraft such as this had a landing gear failure and crash-landed on it's first flight?


Oh yes, Gibbage - the Me262 that crashed was American built.


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942


Message Edited on 08/23/0312:47AM by FW190fan

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 06:42 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- What do you want me to comment?
-
-
- Well, I know you've been madly poking away at your
- calculator, grinding your teething, breaking pencil
- lead, balling up paper, and wiping your forehead
- trying to figure out how to make the Me-262 look
- better than the P-80A.
-
- What did you come up with?


Hehe I come up with this: P-80 was a better fighter than Me-262.
Even more good news for you: 4500fpm climb rate given for P-80A is most probably with wing tip tanks attached - that if I estimated the climb speed correctly, around 320mph (full power) - I'll need a good data for stall speed in clean condition to verify this.

Some mentions about Me-262 data in that paper:
Me-262 fuel system was a somehow curious: it consisted in a 900l tank feeding one engine and a combination of one 400l tank one 260l tank plus one 170l tank for the other engine. Reasons for all these were two: this way there was no need to switch fuel tanks, though there was a manual override, and fuel supply for one engine was split in more containers in order to fit them better in the fuselage and leave the CG unaffected. There was also an aditional 600l auxiliary fuel tank but it was not fitted on all planes. Gross weight was 6900kg with auxiliary tank and 6400kg without it. Initial climb rate is 19.5m/s with aux tank (german test) and 21.5m/s without aux tank (russian test). There was a load config in which Me-262 weighted aprox 6700kg like in your paper - 170l tank was also labeled as auxiliary.

That does not change anything though, P-80 was a better performer.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 07:03 AM
And the Mig 21 is a better performer than the P-80. I think some people here just don't get it, the P-80 is a Korean war fighter, the Me 262 is a WW2 fighter. They are different generations, it is pointless to compare the two.

----------------------------------------
<center>I/JG1 Oesau (http://jg1-oesau.org) is recruiting. Join us!

Stab.I/JG1Death at HL, Maj_Death at Ubi.com

At the start of WW2 the German army lacked experienced anti-aircraft gunners. The average gunner was so bad that the USSR decided to help them out. They did it by forcing some of their pilots to fly I-153 flak magnets. These planes were slow but very sturdy. This allowed German anti-aircraft gunners to get a large amount of target practice on a relatively small number of planes. Thanks to the Soviets help, by the end of the war the German anti-aircraft gunners were amoung the best in the world.
</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 07:03 AM
FW190fan wrote:
- Buzz,
-
- Take Copperhead's logic. He shoots down 12 year olds
- in Hyperlobby flying 262s while he flys a P-40 and
- then posts some really funny cartoons about it.
-
- But what does it prove? That the P-40 is superior to
- the Me262?
-
- What's it going to prove when I fly the Me109F-4 and
- pop a few noobs flying the P-80 when it becomes
- flyable? Nothing really, except that I don't have
- Copperhead's graphics skills and can't post funny
- cartoons about it.
-

Ok smart azz.. dont sing it punk. Bring it. you name the time & day and i'll put a p-40 or a P-39 up against YOU in a 262. You'll be the NEXT 12 year old i shoot down.
Azzhole.

<CENTER>http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p837.jpg
<CENTER>><FONT COLOR="blue">Please visit the 310thVF/BS Online at our NEW web site @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER>A proud member Squadron of IL-2 vUSAAF
<CENTER>310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 07:10 AM
It would only be fair comparison if it were a P-80A-1-LO and not P-80A-5-LO or later model. Which submodel is currently planned?

Ruy "SPADES" Horta
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
-----------------------------
Il-2 - VEF JG 77
-----------------------------
'95-02 - WB Jagdgeschwader 53
'99-00 - DoA Jagdstaffel 18
-----------------------------
The rest is history...

http:\\www.xs4all.nl\~rhorta\brother.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 07:33 AM
MD wrote:
"And the Mig 21 is a better performer than the P-80. I think some people here just don't get it, the P-80 is a Korean war fighter, the Me 262 is a WW2 fighter. They are different generations, it is pointless to compare the two."

?

The P-80 got slowly phased out during Korean war don't ya know /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>http://www.assonetart.com/jsGodsgrace.jpg </center><center>/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif The above statue was a gift from France</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 07:33 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Well, I know you've been madly poking away at your
- calculator, grinding your teething, breaking pencil
- lead, balling up paper, and wiping your forehead
- trying to figure out how to make the Me-262 look
- better than the P-80A.
-
- What did you come up with?
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp

ROTFLMAO!



<font size= 3> <font color= blue>
TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 08:12 AM
And it didn't exist at all during WW2 except as a handful of prototypes and some drawlings. By some of ya'll standards, the Me 262 was a 1942 fighter. I'm not kidding either. There were more Me 262's flying in 1942 and 1943 than there were P-80's flying in the first half of 1945.

----------------------------------------
<center>I/JG1 Oesau (http://jg1-oesau.org) is recruiting. Join us!

Stab.I/JG1Death at HL, Maj_Death at Ubi.com

At the start of WW2 the German army lacked experienced anti-aircraft gunners. The average gunner was so bad that the USSR decided to help them out. They did it by forcing some of their pilots to fly I-153 flak magnets. These planes were slow but very sturdy. This allowed German anti-aircraft gunners to get a large amount of target practice on a relatively small number of planes. Thanks to the Soviets help, by the end of the war the German anti-aircraft gunners were amoung the best in the world.
</center>

Message Edited on 08/23/0302:12AM by Maj_Death

Bearcat101
08-23-2003, 08:29 AM
sfstation.members.easyspace.com/
p80.htm

"Rollout: 1942"

"-When in doubt, empty your magazine.
-Never share a foxhole with anyone braver than you are.
-Never forget that your weapon was made by the lowest bidder.
-If your attack is going really well, it's an ambush.
-No plan survives the first contact intact.
-All 5 second grenade fuses burn down in 3 seconds." Excerpt from Murphy's Laws

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 09:50 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- There were a lot of German designs that shared a
- similar fate. The P-55 was just to revolutionary.
- With the proper powerplant, it could have been a
- very capable fighter. The reason it failed was
- because its intended engine failed and that put an
- engine that was nearly 600HP less. They also fixed
- the stability issues in later models. So its
- service reccord cant erase the fact that the US had
- swept wings well before the war, and WELL before we
- captured any German examples.


Gibbage just wondering what will the flight management on the go229 be like, really looking forward to that one in FB from what ive read it was showing alot of promise in RL but you'll know much more than me??

Oh and have you ever thought about doing a meteor or vampire for FB?

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 02:59 PM
Copperhead310th wrote:

- Ok smart azz.. dont sing it punk. Bring it. you name
- the time & day and i'll put a p-40 or a P-39 up
- against YOU in a 262.



HeHe, give me a break.



-You'll be the NEXT 12 year old
- i shoot down.

That's going to be hard, I haven't been 12 since 1982.



- Azzhole.


Real nice Copperhead, way to show yourself. You've called me a smartass(true), a punk(not true), and an a$$hole(debatable)

Some of you guys are completely incapable of taking a good-natured ribbing from time to time and act like children instead of giving me back a good-natured dose of my own medicine. Steirlitz got it right when he called me a Luftwaffe snob.

Copperhead, I'm disapointed in you. You posted a bunch of cartoons about shooting down a Me-262 online in a P-40 and I thought that was pretty funny actually, but your latest effort makes me wonder if your not in your pre-teen years yourself.

Gibbage of course, is classic Gibbage. Calls me an idiot, claims I said the US stole swept-wing technology(which I did NOT say) and then proceeds to post innacurate information.


Jeez people, have a frikken' peach or something.





<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 09:25 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- SkyChimp wrote:
--
-- Huckebein_FW wrote:
--
--- What do you want me to comment?
--
--
-- Well, I know you've been madly poking away at your
-- calculator, grinding your teething, breaking pencil
-- lead, balling up paper, and wiping your forehead
-- trying to figure out how to make the Me-262 look
-- better than the P-80A.
--
-- What did you come up with?
-
-
- Hehe I come up with this: P-80 was a better fighter
- than Me-262.


Well, this certainly is a red letter day. I may just have to start looking at you in a different light.




Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 09:54 PM
Now that we'll have P-80A in FB I'd really like to fly the Me P.1101. Not that it was a big improvement in performance over He-162, but I'm not feeling comfortable to the thought that I should fly a jet fighter with glued wooden parts.


Nobody wants to model this little bugger? There is a cockpit panel for it.
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/X-5/Small/E-648.jpg



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 08/23/0303:55PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 10:25 PM
If you don't want to fly a plane made, in part, of wood, then you don't want to fly the Me P1101. Its wings were made of wood.

BTW, the Me P1101 never flew. Bell obtained a P1101 and found that in its current state, it could not carry sufficient fuel or armament to be an effective fighter. And the design was such that the Americans could not modify it for their purposes and had to build a much modified copy, the X-5.

Bell found the design to be unsatisfactory, unstable, and with horrible stall characterisitics. And after sufficient testing of Bell's in-flight swing wings (the German design was such that the wings had to be adjust on the ground), the program was scrapped.


Source: Putnam's "Bell Aircraft Since 1935"

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 10:49 PM
SkyChimp wrote:

- Well, this certainly is a red letter day. I may
- just have to start looking at you in a different
- light.


Ahh, love blooms on the GD forum. The old "opposites attract" thing works it's magic again!


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 11:15 PM
FW190fan wrote:
- Ahh, love blooms on the GD forum. The old "opposites
- attract" thing works it's magic again!


It didn't last long/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif see next


SkyChimp wrote:
- If you don't want to fly a plane made, in part, of
- wood, then you don't want to fly the Me P1101. Its
- wings were made of wood.
-
- BTW, the Me P1101 never flew. Bell obtained a P1101
- and found that in its current state, it could not
- carry sufficient fuel or armament to be an effective
- fighter. And the design was such that the Americans
- could not modify it for their purposes and had to
- build a much modified copy, the X-5.

Sure it never flew, but


- Bell found the design to be unsatisfactory,
- unstable, and with horrible stall characterisitics.
- And after sufficient testing of Bell's in-flight
- swing wings (the German design was such that the
- wings had to be adjust on the ground), the program
- was scrapped.

This is not true. Bell used X-5 to gather data for the next generation of supersonic fighters, with high swept wings - 60 degrees. 35 degrees swept wings of the contemporary generation of fighters were not enough to reach supersonic speeds. X-5 was built with wings that could sweep to 60 degrees, never intended in the original project Me P.1101. At such angles X-5 was indeed unstable. It nevertheless proved that practical variable geometry wings could be designed.

At 35 deg swept angle Me P.1101 will fly just fine.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 11:40 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
- This is not true. Bell used X-5 to gather data for
- the next generation of supersonic fighters, with
- high swept wings - 60 degrees. 35 degrees swept
- wings of the contemporary generation of fighters
- were not enough to reach supersonic speeds. X-5 was
- built with wings that could sweep to 60 degrees,
- never intended in the original project Me P.1101. At
- such angles X-5 was indeed unstable. It nevertheless
- proved that practical variable geometry wings could
- be designed.

Everything about the P1101 is speculative, since it never flew. It wasn't designed to, nor did it meet, the July 1944 requirement for a single engined fighter. The P1101 was an internal program of Messerschmitt to study the effects of progressively sweeping wings.

Bell found the original P1101 to have an insufficient fuel capacity to be anything like an effective fighter. The P1101 was to have 2 Mk108 cannons, but Bell found that the plane would have been incapable of carrying the intended armamanet. Messerschmitt never fitted the planned guns.

Bell also found that the plane was not a suitable test bed for it purposes. Bell had to build it's own version, with significant improvements. The plane was found to be unstable and with vicious stall characterisitics. The plane was scrapped. The only thing it was good for was to test the American designed variable sweep wings.

No two ways about it. The P1101 was a test plane in German hands just as the X-5 was in American hands. It was never intended to be a production fighter, and was not an attempt on Messerschmitt's to build a production fighter. It was built to be a test bed.




Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 11:04 AM
Maj_Death wrote:
- And it didn't exist at all during WW2 except as a
- handful of prototypes and some drawlings. By some of
- ya'll standards, the Me 262 was a 1942 fighter. I'm
- not kidding either. There were more Me 262's flying
- in 1942 and 1943 than there were P-80's flying in
- the first half of 1945.

Indeed an even better comparison than a P-80A-1-LO would be YP-80 standard vs Me 262A-1a. However adding Go229s and other "Luft46" will ensure that these a/c will become somewhat fanciful and hardly promising when it comes to the high claims of FM accuracy, simply because there are too many gaps. That shouldn't be the case with the P-80 though, but still wondering about the sub-type chosen.

Personally I'd rather seen all this effort going into more flyable workhorses of the period, many of which are still lacking in the IL2/FB world. More (sub-)types, especially early and middle war period.

I rather see more or less matching sets for the ETO/MTO/EF than some of the exotics (like the A6M2 mod? or flyable Catalina, not to mention Do335, Go229, P-80 and even He 162). But that's a matter of taste.

However with all those projects going on, it is hard to get any idea of what will be added in the next patch as flyable a/c. It wouldn't surprise me if the patch will finaly take on a paid add-on form (time, effort and investment).

If one looks at the Spitfire, it is sad to see such a waste of resources (what is it? 3 types, 3 seperate 3d models and 3 seperate cockpits??? I mean I may be off a number or two, but it would have been so much better if it were a single base Spitfire model and cockpit, worked upon to 3 standards, cutting the work at least in half, not to mention the differences that are bound to creep in when every plane and cockpit is made by a different guy, even when they decide to do some standardizing AFTER the fact.

There is a lot of this type of wastage going on and it is a shame that there isn't a stronger project leadership, regardless of the fact that this is a labour of love.

Ruy "SPADES" Horta
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
-----------------------------
Il-2 - VEF JG 77
-----------------------------
'95-02 - WB Jagdgeschwader 53
'99-00 - DoA Jagdstaffel 18
-----------------------------
The rest is history...

http:\\www.xs4all.nl\~rhorta\brother.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 04:17 PM
rhorta wrote:

- Indeed an even better comparison than a P-80A-1-LO
- would be YP-80 standard vs Me 262A-1a.

The YP-80As sent to Europe in December 1944 were the same as the first production P-80A-1-LOs in all respects. The only difference was in engine names. The YP-80As were powered by GE I-40 engines, which was the named used in pre-production. Production engines were GE J33-GE-11 with 3,850lbs of thrust. Otherwise, they were the same engines.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 04:59 PM
Pointless comparison. Even He162 is more of a WWII fighter than P-80.



<center>http://www.geocities.com/dangdenge2004/arau.txt



|TAO|

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 08:08 PM
Quite an impressive performance even for you Skychimp, not even a single paragraph from what you wrote is true.


SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Bell found the original P1101 to have an
- insufficient fuel capacity to be anything like an
- effective fighter. The P1101 was to have 2 Mk108
- cannons, but Bell found that the plane would have
- been incapable of carrying the intended armamanet.
- Messerschmitt never fitted the planned guns.

Me P.1101 had an internal fuel capacity of more than 1100l (more than Mustang) and a range on internal fuel of 1500km. That doubled the range of P-39. You mean Bell saw their own fighter as an awful ineffective fighter? It was anyway.
And what suppose to be the problem with Mk108 cannon? it was an extremely compact weapon, it was fitted on much smaller planes, why a 4 tone plane couldn't be equipped with it? Pure crap.


-
- Bell also found that the plane was not a suitable
- test bed for it purposes. Bell had to build it's
- own version, with significant improvements. The
- plane was found to be unstable and with vicious
- stall characterisitics. The plane was scrapped.
- The only thing it was good for was to test the
- American designed variable sweep wings.

Who are you trying to lie Skychimp? X-5 was found unstable with wings swept at 60 degrees. There was/is no solution to this problem, no fighter was produced with swept wings at 60 degrees because of instability problems. Only delta wings could be swept to 60 degrees. This is the reason why the second generation of jets (and first supersonic) had either delta wings at 60 degrees (fastest) or swept wings at 45 degrees (less performant). Me P.1101 was perfectly stable at 35 degrees swept and did not need any of Bell "improvements".


-
- No two ways about it. The P1101 was a test plane in
- German hands just as the X-5 was in American hands.
- It was never intended to be a production fighter,
- and was not an attempt on Messerschmitt's to build a
- production fighter. It was built to be a test bed.

P.1101 was not a test plane, it was made in response to the requirement for the future LW single engine fighter. Since the FW proposal was behind, it will have been the replacement for Bf-109. It was scheduled for first flight in a month, June '45. Production version was not planed with variable swept angle, this was present only on the prototype in order to decide the optimum swept angle.
Your affirmation "It was built to be a test bed." is obviously a lie.


-
- Everything about the P1101 is speculative, since it
- never flew. It wasn't designed to, nor did it meet,
- the July 1944 requirement for a single engined
- fighter. The P1101 was an internal program of
- Messerschmitt to study the effects of progressively
- sweeping wings.

Everything about P-80 being serviceable in '45 is purely speculative also. P-80 in '45 has only a history of accidents, groundings and delays. The only unit that actually flew the aircraft was a test unit, which completed the evaluation in July '46. This is the moment in which P-80 could labeled as serviceable, even if deliveries begun earlier.
A '46 Me P.1101 vs P-80A scenario is perfectly reasonable. As for requirements it actually exceded them, except max speed and ceiling, but even here Me P.1101 was very close (and the reasons were objective - primarily a more powerful engine was needed).


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 10:49 PM
Jeff Ethell and Alfred Price wrote the following comment about the P-80's role in WWII : "better for morale than for war".

They were right, the P-80 was never in actual service during the war, only a handfull of prototypes, of which one crashed if I remember well, being sent to Europe for propaganda purposes in the "we too have jets" style.

The aircraft was grounded after Bong's accident on the 6th of august 1945 and all flights were prohibited until early september when this decision was partially cancelled.

By august 1945, there had been 15 accidents (that killed six pilots, and destroyed 8 planes, 4 more being heavily damaged) with the aircraft, and the high command threatened to cancel the programme, a message from Gen. Arnold telling the P-80's team "there wouldn't be any accident again" if they wanted the programme to go ahead.

About the comparison with the Me-262, one should compare the messerschmit to the protoypes which were flying, but even opposed to the "average" P-80A (that is to say an ordinary prduvtion plane), a test (quoted in Ethell and Price's article, and which correspond as far as I know to Yeager's evaluation of the aircraft) reported that the Me-262 was faster and had similar climbing performances.

We should not forget that the P-80's records and famous flights were carried out with heavily modified planes.

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 11:15 PM
Hey Huck, the word "lie" is a pretty strong word where I come from. Why be so quick to use it?


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 11:29 PM
Nicli,

Thank you.I agree completely.I was posting in a similar vein on another jet thread,but strangely my post seems to be gone.Second one, I guess I offended the powers that be.

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 12:17 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Quite an impressive performance even for you
- Skychimp, not even a single paragraph from what you
- wrote is true.

Ok, let's read "History according to Huckebein_FW."



- Me P.1101 had an internal fuel capacity of more than
- 1100l (more than Mustang) and a range on internal
- fuel of 1500km. That doubled the range of P-39. You
- mean Bell saw their own fighter as an awful
- ineffective fighter? It was anyway.
- And what suppose to be the problem with Mk108
- cannon? it was an extremely compact weapon, it was
- fitted on much smaller planes, why a 4 tone plane
- couldn't be equipped with it? Pure crap.

You're truly amazing. You are talking about a plane as if it really exisited, flew and was in production. These were PLANNED accomodations, NEVER fitted. NEVER.

"Robert Woods,...,had an idea for developing and building 24 variable geometry fighter based on the P1101. But the Air Force rejected the proposal, stating the P1101 had too little space for carrying the ordnance wanted or the fuel required for longer ranged missions. In short, it was too small." (Source: "The History of German Aviation: Willy Messerschmit, Pioneer of Aviation Design.", Hans Ebert/Johann Kaiser/Klaus Peters, page 285)

And BTW, Huck, just where are those "compact" MK108s?

http://planeta.terra.com.br/educacao/luftwaffe3945/Imagens/p1101.jpg


Here's a hint. They're are supposed to be in the fuselage below the canopy. I don't see them, do you?



- Who are you trying to lie Skychimp? X-5 was found
- unstable with wings swept at 60 degrees. There
- was/is no solution to this problem, no fighter was
- produced with swept wings at 60 degrees because of
- instability problems. Only delta wings could be
- swept to 60 degrees. This is the reason why the
- second generation of jets (and first supersonic) had
- either delta wings at 60 degrees (fastest) or swept
- wings at 45 degrees (less performant). Me P.1101 was
- perfectly stable at 35 degrees swept and did not
- need any of Bell "improvements".

The P1101 was never flown, Einstein. So you're statement that it was "perfectly stable" is just a sour attempt to mislead people.

Bell found the entire plane losing proposition, although it was a good stimulus in the design of workable aircraft.



- P.1101 was not a test plane, it was made in response
- to the requirement for the future LW single engine
- fighter.

WRONG!!!! This is either a tremendous display of either your lack of knowledge or your failure to research a topic.

"The Messerschmitt company designed the Me P1116 and Me P1110/II for this competition, plus a third project, the P1101; the latter didn't fully meet the requirements and was only an internal program for comparison studies within the competition." (Source: "The History Of German Aviation: The First Jet Aircraft", Wolfgang Wagner, page 156)

In otherwords, a test bed.



- Since the FW proposal was behind, it will
- have been the replacement for Bf-109. It was
- scheduled for first flight in a month, June '45.
- Production version was not planed with variable
- swept angle, this was present only on the prototype
- in order to decide the optimum swept angle.
- Your affirmation "It was built to be a test bed." is
- obviously a lie.

There was no production version planned. The prototype hadn't even flown yet. Who plans to place a plane into production that hasn't even flown? And on top of that, why would Messerschmitt place into production a plane they did not think was suitable:

"That Willy Messerschmitt did not himself consider the P1101 the optimal solution is evidenced by another rework of the design which led to the P1106." (Source: "The History of German Aviation: Wiily Messe4rschmit, Pioneer of Aviation Design.", Hans Ebert/Johann Kaiser/Klaus Peters, page 284)



- Everything about P-80 being serviceable in '45 is
- purely speculative also.

Jeez, Huck. Another fabrication on your part. The USAAF took delivery of the first P-80As in February 1945.



- P-80 in '45 has only a
- history of accidents, groundings and delays. The
- only unit that actually flew the aircraft was a test
- unit, which completed the evaluation in July '46.
- This is the moment in which P-80 could labeled as
- serviceable, even if deliveries begun earlier.
- A '46 Me P.1101 vs P-80A scenario is perfectly
- reasonable.

But the P-80A was a real plane, the P1101 was an unworkable prototype that never got off the ground.



- As for requirements it actually exceded
- them, except max speed and ceiling, but even here Me
- P.1101 was very close (and the reasons were
- objective - primarily a more powerful engine was
- needed).

Exceeded what? The RLM requirements for a single engined fighter?

See the quote above. "...didn't fully meet the requirements and was only an internal program for comparison studies within the competition."

News flash Huck, the P1101 NEVER flew. That it exceeded requirements is a lie.

A plane actually has to get off the ground and perform before its able to meet anything. It may as well have been a paperweight.



Tell you what Huck. Get yourself a few good books. I can recommend some if you like. More importantly, read them. And stop relying on the information you dream up or get off the internet. You may actually learn something, and you'll look foolish less.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg



Message Edited on 08/25/0303:31AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 12:22 AM
nicli wrote:

- About the comparison with the Me-262, one should
- compare the messerschmit to the protoypes which were
- flying, but even opposed to the "average" P-80A
- (that is to say an ordinary prduvtion plane), a test
- (quoted in Ethell and Price's article, and which
- correspond as far as I know to Yeager's evaluation
- of the aircraft) reported that the Me-262 was faster
- and had similar climbing performances.

You'll also find in that test that the Me-262's handling characterisitics "were very poor." It's also interesting to note that BOTH the Me-262 and the P-80A in that fly off crashed. The Me-262 apparently from pilot error, and the P-80A due to a mechanical failure.

But there were at least 5 direct comparisons done. One of which concluded that the "Me-262 may be the fastest plane in service, but the P-80 is the fastest plane in the world."

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 12:26 AM
FW190fan wrote:
- Hey Huck, the word "lie" is a pretty strong word
- where I come from. Why be so quick to use it?


Don't worry, I'm used to it. That's the mentality he displays when someone suggests one of his German planes wasn't as great as he would have it be.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 05:56 AM
wow 2 SIMPLE questions and this thread actually made it to 5 pages. lol well i'll be damd.

<CENTER>http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p837.jpg
<CENTER>><FONT COLOR="blue">Please visit the 310thVF/BS Online at our NEW web site @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER>A proud member Squadron of IL-2 vUSAAF
<CENTER>310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 07:19 AM
What are you takling about people?
Even the Russians kicked the Germans a$$es so hard that
they couldn't get them together for 45 years.
P-80 will beat Me-262.
German planes are good but not the best.That's my point
of view.

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 11:18 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- You'll also find in that test that the Me-262's
- handling characterisitics "were very poor." It's
- also interesting to note that BOTH the Me-262 and
- the P-80A in that fly off crashed. The Me-262
- apparently from pilot error, and the P-80A due to a
- mechanical failure.
-
- But there were at least 5 direct comparisons done.
- One of which concluded that the "Me-262 may be the
- fastest plane in service, but the P-80 is the
- fastest plane in the world."
-

Mechanical failure ? Why am I not surprised ? Those early P-80's were "widow makers".

About the last conclusion, read again the end of my last post, the P-80's speed records were achieved with modified aircrafts, not standard production ones, which explains the different conclusions of these tests as the fastest P-80s were not in service planes (and didn't become so).

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 12:14 PM
Early versions of every aircraft killed people. I would like to see the numbers of pilots killed in Me-262 tests, or how about the real Luft widow maker, the Me-163? How many pilots did the He-162 kill on testing?

Also, just so you know, most of the mecanical flaws on the P-80 were due too a loose gas cap releasing fuel onto the engine. Not a sevear design flaw. The fast that there are MANY P-80's still flying today should attest to its design and yes. There are even many YP-80's still around. I visited one myself. The owner even let me on it so I could take photo's of the cockpit. How many prototypes of ANY 1940-1950 aircraft do you still see around? Off the top of my head, the YP-80 is the only pre-production prototype I have seen in any museum. How many Me-262 prototypes survived?

Gib

nicli wrote:
-
-
-
- Mechanical failure ? Why am I not surprised ? Those
- early P-80's were "widow makers".
-
- About the last conclusion, read again the end of my
- last post, the P-80's speed records were achieved
- with modified aircrafts, not standard production
- ones, which explains the different conclusions of
- these tests as the fastest P-80s were not in service
- planes (and didn't become so).
-
-



I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 12:57 PM
Copperhead310th wrote:
- FW190fan
- lol you Luft~Chickens Crack me up!
- Cuz..i deal with 262's all the time in FB and down
- them in prop jobs. ie p-39's & p-40's. So basically
- the Overrated Me 262 ain't seet. I'm sure that it'll
- only get easier with the p-80



wow, you are so cool. thanks for sharing... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

---------------------------------------



http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.bryant3/ETSigGermany.gif




under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 01:11 PM
btw, why did the us had to steal swept wings from germany. weren´t they able to invent some on their own?



---------------------------------------



http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.bryant3/ETSigGermany.gif




under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 09:00 PM
nicli wrote:
-
-
- SkyChimp wrote:

- About the last conclusion, read again the end of my
- last post, the P-80's speed records were achieved
- with modified aircrafts, not standard production
- ones, which explains the different conclusions of
- these tests as the fastest P-80s were not in service
- planes (and didn't become so).


Re-read my post.

NOBODY is talking about speed records, and I certainly never brought that up.

My comment was about the results of one of the direct comparison tests between the Me-262 and P-80. It has NOTHING to do with speed records.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/tiger.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 09:06 PM
NuFoerki wrote:
- btw, why did the us had to steal swept wings from
- germany. weren´t they able to invent some on their
- own?
-

That's what happens when you start a war and then loose the war./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The advantages of the swept wing of the 262 was a bonus - originally there for CG correction.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 09:18 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- That's what happens when you start a war and then
- loose the war.

ROTFLMAO!

Next they will be telling us how the Gotha boys where the first with a flying wing! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.planesoffame.com/Special%20Features.htm#Northrop%20N9M-B%20Flying%20Wing

Says 44 but the Northrup was playing with it in 37.. Ok Ok.. so they did beat us a little /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif But who won? Hmmm Ok, define win! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif





<font size= 3> <font color= blue>
TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 09:26 PM
NuFoerki wrote:
- btw, why did the us had to steal swept wings from
- germany. weren´t they able to invent some on their
- own?

Havent you been paying attention to this thread? They didn't steal the swept wing design from the Nazi's.
Man you Euro guys are so full of your selvs. lol
it's all very amusing really.....NOT.
Besides...we kicked your Arses didnt't we? lol

<CENTER>http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p837.jpg
<CENTER>><FONT COLOR="blue">Please visit the 310thVF/BS Online at our NEW web site @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER>A proud member Squadron of IL-2 vUSAAF
<CENTER>310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml


Message Edited on 08/25/0303:28PM by Copperhead310th

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 09:34 PM
Just a question - Wasn't it the Allies (England) who developed the first Jet then within 6 months (i forget) the germans started to develop - However England did not want to support where as Hitler wanted to use them for bombers only - and it has been said that if Hitler would have put more into developing this in the early years of the war that the outcome of the air campaigns might have been different?

Anyway - just for the record I am USA - so I am not taking sides just pointing out what I thought to be along the lines of the develpment of the Jet...

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 09:47 PM
I3thdisciple wrote:
- Just a question - Wasn't it the Allies (England) who
- developed the first Jet then within 6 months (i
- forget) the germans started to develop - However
- England did not want to support where as Hitler
- wanted to use them for bombers only - and it has
- been said that if Hitler would have put more into
- developing this in the early years of the war that
- the outcome of the air campaigns might have been
- different?
-

No, the He-178 (27/08/1939) flew more than a year before the Gloster E-28/39 (15/05/1941), though the first jet engines were ready by 1937 in both England and Germany (and, if I remember well, Whittle and von Ohain used different technical solutions to the same problem of jet propulsion).

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 09:48 PM
Yes. Britin had the first working jet engine. Both the British and US felt that the jet would never equal the power if a V12 so they never backed the development. Not till Germany flew the Hs-280 did that wake some people up. Even then, the rush was not on till the Me-262 started attacking the US's B-17's. So yes, the Allies had it first, but boy did we catch up! The US may have been late in the jet war, but our 2nd jet designed and built in JUST 143 days! was able to mean and BEAT Germany's design. WITH 1 ENGINE!!!!!!! Thats quite remarkable, and a testiment for America's enginuity and ability to change and addapt. Now before you say the P-80 was a rush job, it was still used till in the late 70's and early 80's. How long did the Me-262 development take? YEARS!!!!!!

Gib

I3thdisciple wrote:
- Just a question - Wasn't it the Allies (England) who
- developed the first Jet then within 6 months (i
- forget) the germans started to develop - However
- England did not want to support where as Hitler
- wanted to use them for bombers only - and it has
- been said that if Hitler would have put more into
- developing this in the early years of the war that
- the outcome of the air campaigns might have been
- different?
-
- Anyway - just for the record I am USA - so I am not
- taking sides just pointing out what I thought to be
- along the lines of the develpment of the Jet...
-
-
-
-
-



I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 09:59 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- NOBODY is talking about speed records, and I
- certainly never brought that up.
-
- My comment was about the results of one of the
- direct comparison tests between the Me-262 and P-80.
- It has NOTHING to do with speed records.

I find that strange that Me-262 was considered "the fastest in service plane" and the P-80 "the fastest plane in the world" while ,if I remember well, the tests were finished at a time when the P-80 had entered initial service.

So the question is : why wasn't that faster P-80 considered a "service plane" if the comparison was done with a standard production aircraft at a time the first ones were already delivered to units ?

By comparison, in the test that concluded the Me-262 was faster, it was clearly indicated the P-80 used was a standard production aircraft.

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 10:03 PM
nicli wrote:

- I find that strange that Me-262 was considered "the
- fastest in service plane" and the P-80 "the fastest
- plane in the world" while ,if I remember well, the
- tests were finished at a time when the P-80 had
- entered initial service.

Don't think about it too hard, Nicli. They were referring to combat service.



- So the question is : why wasn't that faster P-80
- considered a "service plane" if the comparison was
- done with a standard production aircraft at a time
- the first ones were already delivered to units ?

See above.



- By comparison, in the test that concluded the Me-262
- was faster, it was clearly indicated the P-80 used
- was a standard production aircraft.

The Me-262 used was a recon version with a fighter's nose and no armament. It had been refurbished (who knows exactly what that means). Does this appear to you to be a typical service model?

And again, that was NOT the only test conducted. I have found references to as many as 5 different tests performed. Only one, the test to which you refer, were the planes present at the same time. And both crashed. Again, the P-80A suffering a mechanical malfunction. What was wrong with it and did the malfunction effect its performance? In all my reading on the subject, I've yet to find a complete synopsis of the tests performed.


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/tiger.jpg


Message Edited on 08/26/0301:14AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 10:11 PM
The compairison was done between a production Me-262, and a PRE PRODUCTION YP-80A. The P-80 did not enter "service" till 1947. The tests were I think done in 1945-1946.

Gib

nicli wrote:
-
- I find that strange that Me-262 was considered "the
- fastest in service plane" and the P-80 "the fastest
- plane in the world" while ,if I remember well, the
- tests were finished at a time when the P-80 had
- entered initial service.
-
- So the question is : why wasn't that faster P-80
- considered a "service plane" if the comparison was
- done with a standard production aircraft at a time
- the first ones were already delivered to units ?
-
- By comparison, in the test that concluded the Me-262
- was faster, it was clearly indicated the P-80 used
- was a standard production aircraft.
-
-



I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 10:23 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- The compairison was done between a production
- Me-262, and a PRE PRODUCTION YP-80A. The P-80 did
- not enter "service" till 1947. The tests were I
- think done in 1945-1946.
-
- Gib
-


Gib, AFAIK the test to which Nicli refers took place in 1945 or 46 between a Me-262 and a P-80A.

Its difficult to tell the circumstances of the test since the report can not be found.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/tiger.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 10:36 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Yes. Britin had the first working jet engine. Both
- the British and US felt that the jet would never
- equal the power if a V12 so they never backed the
- development. Not till Germany flew the Hs-280 did
- that wake some people up. Even then, the rush was
- not on till the Me-262 started attacking the US's
- B-17's. So yes, the Allies had it first, but boy
- did we catch up! The US may have been late in the
- jet war, but our 2nd jet designed and built in JUST
- 143 days! was able to mean and BEAT Germany's
- design. WITH 1 ENGINE!!!!!!! Thats quite
- remarkable, and a testiment for America's enginuity
- and ability to change and addapt. Now before you
- say the P-80 was a rush job, it was still used till
- in the late 70's and early 80's. How long did the
- Me-262 development take? YEARS!!!!!!
-

The Me-262 programme started in 1939 but was not considered a priority until late may 1943 (though the first flight with jet engines took place on the 25/03/1942), and it entered combat operations in june 1944, by may 1945, 1433 had been delivered and had scored more than 150 kills for about 100 combat losses (bombers, fighters, and recon units included).

The P-80, although it was started in may 1943, strongly benefitted from the british technology about jet engines which was a only little less advanced than the german one, and didn't fly a single combat flight until the end of the war, only a handfull being delivered (and the last T-33s flying in the 80's had no more in common with the P-80 than the general external appearance).

But, overall, one thing that must be remebered for the early jet designs is the fact that the main problem was the engine's design not the airplane's one (the Me-262's aerodynamic and structural design was finished by early 1941), had the same requirement for jet planes been issued 2 years earlier both in Germany and in the US, it wouldn't have changed the results much, as no engines were really ready for them until the date on which they actually flew.

P.S. : the requirement for the He-162 was issued on the 08/09/1944, the first flew on the 06/12/1944, and it claimed its first kill on the 19/04/1945. By may 1945, about 350 had been produced, 150 received by the LW, it had suffered between 1 and 3 combat losses (and about 15 more, mainly because of pilot errors, the He-162 being an unforgiving plane (dreaming of untrained pilot flying them like Goering had was completely stupid)) and scored a hanfull of kills (at least three RAF planes were claimed).

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 10:47 PM
I will fly the P-80 and enjoy it, but I don't need it to deal with 262's been blowing them out of the sky in my Jug since day one. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)
<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 11:50 PM
Copperhead310th wrote:
- NuFoerki wrote:
-- btw, why did the us had to steal swept wings from
-- germany. weren´t they able to invent some on their
-- own?
-
- Havent you been paying attention to this thread?
- They didn't steal the swept wing design from the
- Nazi's.
- Man you Euro guys are so full of your selvs. lol
- it's all very amusing really.....NOT.
- Besides...we kicked your Arses didnt't we? lol



muahahaha... caught me a big one /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif fw190 fan is a good teacher.

some people are just too predictable.



btw: why are french women much better looking than american ones? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

---------------------------------------



http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.bryant3/ETSigGermany.gif




under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 11:54 PM
- btw: why are french women much better looking than
- american ones? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
-
----------------------------------------
-
Perhaps all that body hair reminds you of your father in some sick perverted way that excites you. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)
<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

</center>

Message Edited on 08/25/0310:58PM by Eagle_361st

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 12:25 AM
are you into animals or what /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif



---------------------------------------



http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.bryant3/ETSigGermany.gif




under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 04:05 AM
Cuz they braid there armpit hair, and thats actually attractive to French men.

NuFoerki wrote:
-
- btw: why are french women much better looking than
- american ones?

I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 04:45 AM
I3thdisciple wrote:
- Just a question - Wasn't it the Allies (England) who
- developed the first Jet then within 6 months (i
- forget) the germans started to develop - However
- England did not want to support where as Hitler
- wanted to use them for bombers only - and it has
- been said that if Hitler would have put more into
- developing this in the early years of the war that
- the outcome of the air campaigns might have been
- different?
-
- Anyway - just for the record I am USA - so I am not
- taking sides just pointing out what I thought to be
- along the lines of the develpment of the Jet...

The outcome was enviable, the Me262 coming out sooner would have just prolonged the suffering of the German people. IMHO!


<font size= 3> <font color= blue>
TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 06:06 PM
tagert wrote:
- The outcome was enviable, the Me262 coming out
- sooner would have just prolonged the suffering of
- the German people. IMHO!


I am not saying the outcome of the war - I am talking about the outcome of some strategic air campaigns - I think that if the Germans would have put more into it - they could have developed some better fighters for the time - I was just under impression that Hitler wanted to load the ME's down with bombs - which they where not originaly designed for.

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 06:18 PM
Even before AH said to use the 262 as a bomber, Messerschmitt was looking at adding bombs to the 262.


I3thdisciple wrote:

-
- I am not saying the outcome of the war - I am
- talking about the outcome of some strategic air
- campaigns - I think that if the Germans would have
- put more into it - they could have developed some
- better fighters for the time - I was just under
- impression that Hitler wanted to load the ME's down
- with bombs - which they where not originaly designed
- for.
-


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 06:24 PM
NuFoerki wrote:
- muahahaha... caught me a big one /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif fw190 fan is a good
- teacher.
-
- some people are just too predictable.


Now that's a laugh since i started this thread to hook all you LW guys. Now who's the big fish named Wanda? not me luft~boy. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
I knew your ove inflated ego's would just bust if you did defend your precious little Me 262. lol
hence the tittle: Will the P-80 OWN the Me262 in FB?
Kinda reahed right out and grabed ya didn't it?

<CENTER>http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p837.jpg
<CENTER>><FONT COLOR="blue">Please visit the 310thVF/BS Online at our NEW web site @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER>A proud member Squadron of IL-2 vUSAAF
<CENTER>310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml