PDA

View Full Version : the British Meteor Jet won the war, not the Bearcat....



MB_Avro_UK
10-01-2005, 04:36 PM
The wartime 1945 version outclassed all prop versions of aircraft and was the only allied jet to see combat service...forget the Bearcat, this plane represented the future http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Regards,
MB_Avro

Badsight.
10-01-2005, 05:38 PM
*cough*FlyingDog*cough*

Daiichidoku
10-01-2005, 06:53 PM
gotta agree with ya there, badsight


*cough*sadsacklosermobile*cough*



gimme a break, the meteor was the hurricane of its generation...on the leading edge (for britain) at its birth, but quickly, and very quickly totally outclassed by any and everything after it...not bad looking...but this is a NOT a case of "if it looks right, it flys right" in spades

hmmm bearcat or meteor...like choosing between life and death

Daiichidoku
10-01-2005, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
this plane represented the future http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

THIS plane represented the future
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SgAAADgWEzgl9EFEsHcfGKFKTWU*uHa58WE7b!DlQt!3QpEn8 mMxAx*bW3oMmbcK!pJko2NjDf0OAJfJ20nY9OSi12!*m31aAuz wbJ1IFtTyIa6kM5li4w/Ho229_1.jpg?dc=4675541634159247199


THIS one did NOT
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQAAAMAWP1rcRtSZBUzj68E6oKHBnfJ19HlntU*PusdyoLuEk 2kPDAWIP9umfapvIWqvpMpPoZs!0pZfJCYkggk2WmalQrVn4HQ 1heQUo1y5kSydXoinnQ/Meteor.jpg?dc=4675541492106119689
seen many straight winged, centrifigal flow powered jets lately?

PBNA-Boosher
10-01-2005, 07:05 PM
No, it's obvious that the P-40 won the war.

This chart I have here from the Smithsonian proves it:

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/8962/fakechart7ah.jpg

Daiichidoku
10-01-2005, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
No, it's obvious that the P-40 won the war.

This chart I have here from the Smithsonian proves it:

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/8962/fakechart7ah.jpg



ummm boosher....i think badsight heard what you said....here he comes now, and he doesnt look happy....
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SgDpAgUXvm*z5muONNOlC3mUfG1VWvnjASD1tpuQl8RBDGecA mUvtuWaj0CIB5AL9VhzGBRwwnGg*Xn5w2JXDHBlu3rZCliJSB* uE6uh2CeFkc8hgDoV0g/sinden0.jpg?dc=4675490750162943329

Low_Flyer_MkII
10-01-2005, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
this plane represented the future http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

THIS plane represented the future
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SgAAADgWEzgl9EFEsHcfGKFKTWU*uHa58WE7b!DlQt!3QpEn8 mMxAx*bW3oMmbcK!pJko2NjDf0OAJfJ20nY9OSi12!*m31aAuz wbJ1IFtTyIa6kM5li4w/Ho229_1.jpg?dc=4675541634159247199


THIS one did NOT
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQAAAMAWP1rcRtSZBUzj68E6oKHBnfJ19HlntU*PusdyoLuEk 2kPDAWIP9umfapvIWqvpMpPoZs!0pZfJCYkggk2WmalQrVn4HQ 1heQUo1y5kSydXoinnQ/Meteor.jpg?dc=4675541492106119689
seen many straight winged, centrifigal flow powered jets lately? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One of them never flew.
One of them was still in sevice in the 1960's.
Can you guess which one?

jarink
10-01-2005, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
One of them never flew.
One of them was still in sevice in the 1960's.
Can you guess which one?

Was it this one?
http://www.military.cz/usa/air/war/fighter/p51/p51_afttoff.jpg

P-51s flew with many Latin American air forces well into the 1960s (Some countries even flew them into the 1970s).

JunkoIfurita
10-01-2005, 07:47 PM
The fact that the Ho-229 never flew had more to do with the fact that Germany was conquered and de-militarised than it did with any technical reasons.

The Gloster Meteor jet was an airframe built for slow airspeeds (relative to what a jet engine made possible) - it was outmoded before it was even produced.

Where-as the swept-wing, Canard and flying wing designs were the designs which would remain once fixed and straight wing jet aircraft became clearly inadequate.

The Concorde was a Canard - a design that was directly influenced by pure flying-wing designs - of which the Ho-229 was one of the first (powered).

Even the 262 had swept wings, and it was the first jet to be used in combat.

That the Meteor was used into the 60's doesn't really qualify anything. I still write a letter occasionally, even though that mode of communications is totally outclassed by the more convenient methods of telephone or email.

----

UberDemon
10-01-2005, 07:53 PM
Darn it... and all this time I thought it was the Wright Brother's Flyer and Santos Dummon's 14bis that did it! Now I know better.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

UberDemon

Cajun76
10-01-2005, 08:02 PM
Check my sig, young padawan.

Cajun76
10-01-2005, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by JunkoIfurita:
The fact that the Ho-229 never flew had more to do with the fact that Germany was conquered and de-militarised than it did with any technical reasons.

The swept wing IL-2's had a lot to do with that.


Where-as the swept-wing, Canard and flying wing designs were the designs which would remain once fixed and straight wing jet aircraft became clearly inadequate.

Swept wing Il-2's clearly demonstrate this level of aerodynamic genius.


Even the 262 had swept wings, and it was the first jet to be used in combat.


----

No doubt! 262's and sept wing IL-2 were the way of the future.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Badsight.
10-01-2005, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by JunkoIfurita:
The fact that the Ho-229 never flew had more to do with the fact that Germany was conquered and de-militarised than it did with any technical reasons. excuse me ?

http://xs48.xs.to/pics/05390/ho_229_pic7.jpg

Badsight.
10-01-2005, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
No doubt! 262's and sept wing IL-2 were the way of the future. dunno about IL-2's raiding the Gotha workshops , but Iyllushin did end up sweeping the wings of their Military G/A planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/5557/il40duffey2ubi0gq.jpg

http://www.suchoj.com/galerie/index.htm?http://www.such.../IL-40/galerie.shtml (http://www.suchoj.com/galerie/index.htm?http://www.suchoj.com/andere/IL-40/galerie.shtml)

Rjel
10-01-2005, 09:20 PM
seen many straight winged, centrifigal flow powered jets lately?

Maybe not centrifigal flow powered, but certainly straight winged, the A-10.

Enforcer572005
10-01-2005, 09:37 PM
um, i kinda think shooting down 13 buzz bombs flying straight and level really doesnt qualify as air combat, though it may qualify as combat technically. it was just fast enough to catch them, but so wree griffin engined spits and tempests.

the bearcats were all on the deck of teh midway when the war ended, so........
they did see combat with the french in vietnam in the early 50s in attack roles.

Honduras and salvador flew combat in corsairs and 51ds in the mid 60s against each other in the soccor war...(carries sports a bit far).
The dominican repulic last used 51s in teh late 70s, had 12 in service wiht an incredible safety record. one day they shot up a cuban "fishing boat" that was snooping around (good shooting boys), but the next day 2 cuban Mig-23s made a pass down their runway. So they sold them to warbird collectors and we gave them some F-5Es. No more buzz jobs by Migs.

and boosher, that chart...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Bearcat99
10-01-2005, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
this plane represented the future http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

THIS plane represented the future
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SgAAADgWEzgl9EFEsHcfGKFKTWU*uHa58WE7b!DlQt!3QpEn8 mMxAx*bW3oMmbcK!pJko2NjDf0OAJfJ20nY9OSi12!*m31aAuz wbJ1IFtTyIa6kM5li4w/Ho229_1.jpg?dc=4675541634159247199


THIS one did NOT
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQAAAMAWP1rcRtSZBUzj68E6oKHBnfJ19HlntU*PusdyoLuEk 2kPDAWIP9umfapvIWqvpMpPoZs!0pZfJCYkggk2WmalQrVn4HQ 1heQUo1y5kSydXoinnQ/Meteor.jpg?dc=4675541492106119689
seen many straight winged, centrifigal flow powered jets lately? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One of them never flew.
One of them was still in sevice in the 1960's.
Can you guess which one? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about the 21st Century... http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b2/images/b2_6.jpg

Daiichidoku
10-01-2005, 10:54 PM
messed up that pic of badsight on the way to defend the bearcats honour....

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SgD*AgUXvm*z5muONNOlC3mUfG1VWvnjASD1tpuQl8RBDGecA mUvtuWaj0CIB5AL9VhzGBRwwnGg*Xn5w2JXDHBlu3rZCliJSB* uE6uh2CeFkc8hgDoV0g/sinden0.jpg?dc=4675490750162943329

Gibbage1
10-01-2005, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
THIS plane represented the future
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SgAAADgWEzgl9EFEsHcfGKFKTWU*uHa58WE7b!DlQt!3QpEn8 mMxAx*bW3oMmbcK!pJko2NjDf0OAJfJ20nY9OSi12!*m31aAuz wbJ1IFtTyIa6kM5li4w/Ho229_1.jpg?dc=4675541634159247199


THIS one did NOT


One of them never flew.
One of them was still in sevice in the 1960's.
Can you guess which one?

How about the 21st Century... http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b2/images/b2_6.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

caugh*BS*caugh.

http://www.military.cz/usa/air/war/bomber/b35/yb35_21.jpg

Thats the insperation for the Northrup B2. How do I know, I spoke to Northrup engineers that worked on the thing. Yes, they did inspect the Go-229, but they found "nothing they did not already know".

Many many design aspects were taken from the YB-35/49 including the split aileron control system. Even the wingspan of the B-35 and B-2 are identical.

Daiichidoku
10-01-2005, 11:17 PM
badsight~nice, (but crappy) pic of the goth on its first...and only flight...but flight nonetheless ( is that a still from footage? if so, got any of the footage on video? )

low flyer~ the reason the metoer was still in service into the 60's and is (AFAIK) STILL being used by martin-baker for ej seat testing, was the same reason why RAF soldiered on with spit 24s, tempest/furys, mossie/hornets, wellington/warwicks/(?)vikings(?), lanc/lincolns, vampire/venom/vixens etc, etc, etc....was not for the stirling, cutting edge performance offered...but due in large part to budget...or lack therof....

RAF, with a few exceptions, had to keep eq in service far longer than USAF, for example, who got new eq as often as fresh underwear, only keeping the GOOD stuff for long periods, by and large

HellToupee
10-01-2005, 11:22 PM
http://www.nzwarbirds.org.nz/vampire_6.jpg

this baby almost won the war

Gibbage1
10-01-2005, 11:24 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/meteor.jpg

We can always ask Killjoy to make the Meteor. Hehehe. I keep that model around for a good laugh every now and then.

Daiichidoku
10-01-2005, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
THIS plane represented the future
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SgAAADgWEzgl9EFEsHcfGKFKTWU*uHa58WE7b!DlQt!3QpEn8 mMxAx*bW3oMmbcK!pJko2NjDf0OAJfJ20nY9OSi12!*m31aAuz wbJ1IFtTyIa6kM5li4w/Ho229_1.jpg?dc=4675541634159247199


THIS one did NOT


One of them never flew.
One of them was still in sevice in the 1960's.
Can you guess which one?

How about the 21st Century... http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b2/images/b2_6.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

caugh*BS*caugh.

http://www.military.cz/usa/air/war/bomber/b35/yb35_21.jpg

Thats the insperation for the Northrup B2. How do I know, I spoke to Northrup engineers that worked on the thing. Yes, they did inspect the Go-229, but they found "nothing they did not already know".

Many many design aspects were taken from the YB-35/49 including the split aileron control system. Even the wingspan of the B-35 and B-2 are identical. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yup...horten bros and john northrop knew what was what way back in the 30s already

not a true flying wing, but the flying ram must showed those same engineers how NOT to make a flying wing, hehehehe

hmmmmm yes, actually, i think for the typical FB pilot, the northrop flying ram is the PERFECT plane...you should have done that, instead of the goth, gibbagehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif....gawd only knows how often many try to emulate its modus operandi

Daiichidoku
10-01-2005, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
http://www.nzwarbirds.org.nz/vampire_6.jpg

this baby almost won the war



the kind of vampires that DONT suck......sweet
too bad they couldnt fly much further than the boundary

Hoarmurath
10-01-2005, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/meteor.jpg

We can always ask Killjoy to make the Meteor. Hehehe. I keep that model around for a good laugh every now and then.

Well, it seem much more advanced than the PBY for PF

Gibbage1
10-01-2005, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:

hmmmmm yes, actually, i think for the typical FB pilot, the northrop flying ram is the PERFECT plane...you should have done that, instead of the goth, gibbagehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif....gawd only knows how often many try to emulate its modus operandi

Would of gone great with the piloted Fi-103 dont ya think?

Gibbage1
10-01-2005, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:

Well, it seem much more advanced than the PBY for PF

Really? Lol. You suck so bad at trolling Frenchy.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/pbyblisters21.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/pbypit-26.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/pby5a07.jpg

Badsight.
10-01-2005, 11:42 PM
Daiichidoku , i dont know if the Gotha pic is from footage , but thank Gibbage - he pointed me to the website again after i had lost those pics from a H/D crash

the ONLY pics of the Gotha flying here :O (http://www.pilotenbunker.de/Unbek_Helden/Ziller_Erwin/ziller_erwin.htm)

& that peice of Shinden artwork - nice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif , one (of the few , be sure!) that i didnt have - because man have i searched & searched & searched for Shinden pics :O!

Daiichidoku
10-02-2005, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
Daiichidoku , i dont know if the Gotha pic is from footage , but thank Gibbage - he pointed me to the website again after i had lost those pics from a H/D crash

the ONLY pics of the Gotha flying here :O (http://www.pilotenbunker.de/Unbek_Helden/Ziller_Erwin/ziller_erwin.htm)

& that peice of Shinden artwork - nice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif , one (of the few , be sure!) that i didnt have - because man have i searched & searched & searched for Shinden pics :O!


http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RwDVAicVResBDhUJY1gQb31Db9T7DJzYcQiuByp3jzR1He5Vw yHeamVQt91gSVpcmPJfZ8a0nspw*PbbGssSRmywbSlj05zKz8o Qoj8aVrM/1945.jpg?dc=4675541663302800280

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SgARAx4WATEHnbUCT!HZgIutgKwACR5KIQlulXRhwkqVn02jC sZGtHzrvh1YBPPCwInJ9PyJUw8igFcDZBdMxuUnJExCq00Lxfn qHrrYVMbaXA1I81WoFg/J7W1_02.jpg?dc=4675541663384824611

these are the only ones left i have the the J7....been many a reformat myself...these ones i had in a emailbox, so i didnt lose em

im sure theres many more out there...go to http://www2.cc22.ne.jp/~harada/
im sure you know it....shame on you of not...then spend the next day or three navigating his links....then his links' links...and so on, and so on, and so on...
eventually you will find some truly spectacular CG planes, ships, tanks, guns, etc...mostly JP stuff, too, which is quite nice...maybe even a few shindenshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



oh yea...dunno if shindens have been in any other video game....but i have flown it in a sega saturn game..."wing arms" it was called

Daiichidoku
10-02-2005, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:

hmmmmm yes, actually, i think for the typical FB pilot, the northrop flying ram is the PERFECT plane...you should have done that, instead of the goth, gibbagehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif....gawd only knows how often many try to emulate its modus operandi

Would of gone great with the piloted Fi-103 dont ya think? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


oh yea...or, we could get REALLY STUPID and ask something that wasnt even built, like....oh, i dunno, maybe a 109 Zwill......um, nevermind


funny, took a woman to fly the Fi103 successfully for the first time

pourshot
10-02-2005, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
this plane represented the future http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

THIS plane represented the future
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SgAAADgWEzgl9EFEsHcfGKFKTWU*uHa58WE7b!DlQt!3QpEn8 mMxAx*bW3oMmbcK!pJko2NjDf0OAJfJ20nY9OSi12!*m31aAuz wbJ1IFtTyIa6kM5li4w/Ho229_1.jpg?dc=4675541634159247199


THIS one did NOT
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQAAAMAWP1rcRtSZBUzj68E6oKHBnfJ19HlntU*PusdyoLuEk 2kPDAWIP9umfapvIWqvpMpPoZs!0pZfJCYkggk2WmalQrVn4HQ 1heQUo1y5kSydXoinnQ/Meteor.jpg?dc=4675541492106119689
seen many straight winged, centrifigal flow powered jets lately? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hardly the way of the future after all how many supersonic flying wing fighters are in service today?

Badsight.
10-02-2005, 12:32 AM
nope , ive got Harada's stuff , been there along with tochy's since 2003 at least

Harada posts his work at CGtalk , lots of cool WW2 stuff makes it there : )

like :

http://xs48.xs.to/pics/05390/he219.jpg

Daiichidoku
10-02-2005, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by pourshot:
Hardly the way of the future after all how many supersonic flying wing fighters are in service today?

who said anything about being supersonic..much less that the future NEEDS supersonic capabilities?

besides, if one uses mach1+ as a criteria for "the future" from a 1945 standpoint....well, the only supersonic meteors that could ever be would have interred themselves about 15 ft underground shortly after achieving thresholdhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Daiichidoku
10-02-2005, 12:54 AM
yea, i still have those pics after you sent me the link many months ago

what the link again?

i lost one of haradas pic long ago, and he hasnt had it at his site for some time now...was a zero 86'n a hapless PBY....

Secudus2004
10-02-2005, 03:28 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif The British were first‚‚ā¨¬¶ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/images/dunne_5_2vc_350.jpg

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/images/dunne_6as_350.jpg


Dunne D.5, March 11, 1910: World's first swept-wing. Unusually stable, even at very low speeds, this and the later monoplane version (D6) will help stimulate ideas some thirty years later. Designed by John W. Dunne and built by Eustace, Oswald and Horace Short.

OD_79
10-02-2005, 04:17 AM
Fair enough the meteor was a dead end for technology; but what aircraft set the world speed record at over 600mph? What else was around at the end of WW2 (other than the 262) that could outclass it? The P-80! or the Airacobra Hmmm. Oh and for the other aircraft still flying with straight wings and centrifugal flow engines check out the Canberra, still in RAF service (or may have only recently been retired), used by the USAF and a few other countries.
The engines worked. Axial flow engines were more complex, more expensive and had shorter engine lives...which do you choose when you're testing new technology?..the one that does not cost so much but proves the principle beyond doubt.
I wouldn't say it won the war though...but at least it took part, shame its never featured in any flight sims.

OD.

major_setback
10-02-2005, 04:24 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:

Well, it seem much more advanced than the PBY for PF

Really? Lol. You suck so bad at trolling Frenchy.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/pbyblisters21.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/pbypit-26.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/pby5a07.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

These renders are really very good! This is surely not the plane we have in FB/PF now? It's much more detailed. What's the story behind this...? I guess that we won't be getting it, but was it planned at all as flyable? It certainly has enough detail.

I always was a little dissapointed that the one we have in the game wasn't of better quality/flyable, this is one of my favotite planes ever...one of the first (Airfix) models I ever had (I have the old 1/48 Monogram model, which was re-released by Revell, still unbuilt in the box: excellent detail!)

Aaron_GT
10-02-2005, 05:39 AM
Nice PBY - shame it won't be in PF as it looks fantastic. Is there any chance of letting Oleg use it for BoB?

Gibbage1
10-02-2005, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Nice PBY - shame it won't be in PF as it looks fantastic. Is there any chance of letting Oleg use it for BoB?

Thats possible. If Oleg releases the aircraft tool, I will try to put it into BoB. For now she is going to FS2004.

Mr Setback, I was working on that model for IL2/PF for some time. I ran out of time and Oleg stopped accepting models for IL2/PF. Thats the story.

major_setback
10-02-2005, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Nice PBY - shame it won't be in PF as it looks fantastic. Is there any chance of letting Oleg use it for BoB?

Thats possible. If Oleg releases the aircraft tool, I will try to put it into BoB. For now she is going to FS2004.

Mr Setback, I was working on that model for IL2/PF for some time. I ran out of time and Oleg stopped accepting models for IL2/PF. Thats the story. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the reply! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hoarmurath
10-02-2005, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Nice PBY - shame it won't be in PF as it looks fantastic. Is there any chance of letting Oleg use it for BoB?

Thats possible. If Oleg releases the aircraft tool, I will try to put it into BoB. For now she is going to FS2004.

Mr Setback, I was working on that model for IL2/PF for some time. I ran out of time and Oleg stopped accepting models for IL2/PF. Thats the story. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The story forget to tell you that gibbage asked for money from people here to make this plane for FB/PF... And got money...

Nick_Toznost
10-02-2005, 11:29 AM
Stop ****ging off the Meteor. I agree with the author of this thread.


Frank Whittle.

Gibbage1
10-02-2005, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:

The story forget to tell you that gibbage asked for money from people here to make this plane for FB/PF... And got money...

The bit of story YOUR forgetting is that I offered everyone there money back. Nobody took me up on this. Why?

Go run and hide Frenchy. You were just owned troll boy. Your such a failure. Now, you gonna start talking french again to try to make it look like you have a point when you dont?

Daiichidoku
10-02-2005, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by Nick_Toznost:
Stop ****ging off the Meteor. I agree with the author of this thread.


Frank Whittle.



kaput mit der meteor...ve anprobiert dieses autur auf dienen "thread"



hans von ohain
ernst heinkel
hugo junkers



(apologies to deutsche speakers)

Daiichidoku
10-02-2005, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:

The story forget to tell you that gibbage asked for money from people here to make this plane for FB/PF... And got money...

The bit of story YOUR forgetting is that I offered everyone there money back. Nobody took me up on this. Why?

Go run and hide Frenchy. You were just owned troll boy. Your such a failure. Now, you gonna start talking french again to try to make it look like you have a point when you dont? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


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

i cant decide whats funnier of those two rips, the above one or you new sig

Badsight.
10-03-2005, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
. . . . . Now, you gonna start talking french again . . . . . . you say that like its a bad thing!

Gibbage1
10-03-2005, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
. . . . . Now, you gonna start talking french again . . . . . . you say that like its a bad thing! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ya. I thought it was cute, but having to bablefish that jibberish was a pain. It made as much sense AFTER translation as it did BEFORE.

Badsight.
10-03-2005, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Ya. I thought it was cute, but having to bablefish that jibberish was a pain. It made as much sense AFTER translation as it did BEFORE. ROTFL !

ImpStarDuece
10-03-2005, 01:29 AM
There were 20 Meteor Mk Is before production switched to the Meteor Mk III of which 210 made, most before the end of the war.

No 616 (South Yorkshire) Squadron switched to Meteor Mk Is in July of 1944 while based at Manston. In Feburary of 1945 they switched to Meteor Mk IIIs and moved to Colerne.

616 flew anti 'Diver' (Feisler 103 flying bombs) patrols in Mk Is and shot down 13 in 32 days of action.

In Feburary they were re-equipped with Meteor Mk IIIs and a detachment was sent to Beligum, followed by the rest of the squadron in April, 1945.

Mk III made 495 mph, which was still about 65 mph slower than the Me-262. Comparing a Mk I Meteor to a Mk III Meteor is a little unfair, it is like comparing a Spitfire Mk IX to a Spitfire Mk XIV or a 190E to a 109G. Different engines, more refinements, better performance all around.

The Meteor Mk III was about 60-80 mph faster at all altitudes than the Mk I and more than doubled the maximum rate of climb. It had Derwent engines which were about 20% more powerful and slightly smaller than the Wellands that they replaced as well as being lighter and more fuel efficient. It had increased internal fuel capacity, revised bubble canopy with a sliding hood, revised engine intakes (to help cure buffet) and a stronger airframe.

On the downside the Mk III was heavily balasted (up to 500-600lbs) to help with centre of gravity problems that arose with the new engines, was prone to snaking at high speed (a problem that also arose with propellor driven aircraft like the Do-335) and had its alieron performance made deliberately heavy, to discourage pilots from performing aerobatics on what was essentially a trial airframe.

So......

the Mk I was admittedly something of a lame duck. It was slower than contemporary pistoned engined fighters at the time. The one advantage that the Meteor had was that it retained its top speed at all heights. It did around 400 mph on the deck.

The Mk III, even clipped as it was by the purposely heavy alierons, was quite a bit better. It could pull about 475 mph on the deck and was used in attacks on MET in Belgium during the final months of the war. It never engaged in air-to-air combat but was far from the helpless target that people like to pertray it as.

Gibbage1
10-03-2005, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
It never engaged in air-to-air combat but was far from the helpless target that people like to pertray it as.

In a server full of P-80's, Me-262 and He-162's it would be a flying target.

pourshot
10-03-2005, 03:35 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pourshot:
Hardly the way of the future after all how many supersonic flying wing fighters are in service today?

who said anything about being supersonic..much less that the future NEEDS supersonic capabilities?

besides, if one uses mach1+ as a criteria for "the future" from a 1945 standpoint....well, the only supersonic meteors that could ever be would have interred themselves about 15 ft underground shortly after achieving thresholdhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


My point was this, you said the Gotha a flying wing jet fighter was the way of the future while a more conventional fighter like the meteor was a dead end when in fact history has shown the opposite, and if we are talking fighters speed is life so super sonic flight is vital.

MrBlueSky1960
10-03-2005, 04:27 AM
In a server full of P-80's, Me-262 and He-162's it would be a flying target.

Alot of people said the same about an aircraft based around a Pegasus engine, with movable ducts... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

p1ngu666
10-03-2005, 05:28 AM
hm, the meteor mk1 would be good for online then http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

i have a poster of a seafury and hawker sea hawk on my wall, straight wings and jet engines http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

nearest fighters to the flying wing are the european ones that are delta, and the stealth fighter i guess.

jets probably partly have swept wings cos the engines are in the middle/back, while on a prop its at the right, so c o g issues and centre of lift to address, same reason il2, swordfish and others have sweptback wings..

MB_Avro_UK
10-03-2005, 09:39 AM
hey ImpStarDuece...

I've noticed that you make very informed comments on this and other threads http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro_UK

Von_Rat
10-03-2005, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by pourshot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pourshot:
Hardly the way of the future after all how many supersonic flying wing fighters are in service today?

who said anything about being supersonic..much less that the future NEEDS supersonic capabilities?

besides, if one uses mach1+ as a criteria for "the future" from a 1945 standpoint....well, the only supersonic meteors that could ever be would have interred themselves about 15 ft underground shortly after achieving thresholdhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


My point was this, you said the Gotha a flying wing jet fighter was the way of the future while a more conventional fighter like the meteor was a dead end when in fact history has shown the opposite, and if we are talking fighters speed is life so super sonic flight is vital. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

actually it seems that in the future for fighters too, stealth not speed is life.

mynameisroland
10-03-2005, 02:14 PM
The Meteor would have been like the Hurricane , not a design with much future potential but it would have been a great fighter. The best jet fighter of the Period IMO was the Vampire.

darkhorizon11
10-03-2005, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
this plane represented the future http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

THIS plane represented the future
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SgAAADgWEzgl9EFEsHcfGKFKTWU*uHa58WE7b!DlQt!3QpEn8 mMxAx*bW3oMmbcK!pJko2NjDf0OAJfJ20nY9OSi12!*m31aAuz wbJ1IFtTyIa6kM5li4w/Ho229_1.jpg?dc=4675541634159247199


THIS one did NOT
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQAAAMAWP1rcRtSZBUzj68E6oKHBnfJ19HlntU*PusdyoLuEk 2kPDAWIP9umfapvIWqvpMpPoZs!0pZfJCYkggk2WmalQrVn4HQ 1heQUo1y5kSydXoinnQ/Meteor.jpg?dc=4675541492106119689
seen many straight winged, centrifigal flow powered jets lately? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One of them never flew.
One of them was still in sevice in the 1960's.
Can you guess which one? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about the 21st Century... http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b2/images/b2_6.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Great planes indeed. But the future? You can count the number of flying wing projects on one hand. And you can count the number of successful flying wing projects on one finger.

The flying wing design is extremely unstable along the yaw and roll axis making the aircraft dangerous to fly in certain flight attitudes. It wasn't until the advent of a complex flight computer that made the flying-wing somewhat safe in the 70s.

Sure, its more efficient, stealth, and saves gas, but I think thats outwieght the fact that they cost somewhere around a billion bucks a pop.

Don't get me wrong, the B-49, Go 229, and B2 are all beautiful aircraft. Truly remarkable engineering achievements, but I doubt we'll ever see a day when theres a flying wing in every garage.

Last time I checked there still might be a few jets out there with conventional tails and engines slung below the wings... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Gibbage1
10-03-2005, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:


Last time I checked there still might be a few jets out there with conventional tails and engines slung below the wings... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Jumbo jets, large bombers and Cargo aircraft yes. Cutting edge fighters? No.

Gnasha
10-04-2005, 01:38 PM
My point was this, you said the Gotha a flying wing jet fighter was the way of the future while a more conventional fighter like the meteor was a dead end when in fact history has shown the opposite, and if we are talking fighters speed is life so super sonic flight is vital.


Funny really considering that there are still Meteors listed in military service today, the oldest aircraft to have that accreditation. Martin Baker operate 2 Meteors as ejection seat test beds, currently testing the JSF seats. The pilots say they love fly by wire as longs as it's steel & 1/4" thick http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Daiichidoku
10-04-2005, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by Gnasha:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My point was this, you said the Gotha a flying wing jet fighter was the way of the future while a more conventional fighter like the meteor was a dead end when in fact history has shown the opposite, and if we are talking fighters speed is life so super sonic flight is vital.


Funny really considering that there are still Meteors listed in military service today, the oldest aircraft to have that accreditation. Martin Baker operate 2 Meteors as ejection seat test beds, currently testing the JSF seats. The pilots say they love fly by wire as longs as it's steel & 1/4" thick http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


yes...read the whole thread first, and you will see i mentioned this one page one already


Originally posted by Daii:
the reason the metoer was still in service into the 60's and is (AFAIK) STILL being used by martin-baker for ej seat testing

BTW, matin-baker is a commercial entity, the bang seat meteors are are NOT in military service anymore...still remarkable that they are flying today, just the same...but then, avengers are still being used for spruce bud-worm spraying in new brunswick, canada...not to mention

all that is NOTHING compared to the life of B 52s, 50years + now, and in service for the forseeable...what, 30-40 years? B 52s will probably NEVER be rivalled in military service life

i would imagine there will still be at least a few DC 3s running cargo by then, too...WOW

darkhorizon11
10-05-2005, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkhorizon11:


Last time I checked there still might be a few jets out there with conventional tails and engines slung below the wings... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Jumbo jets, large bombers and Cargo aircraft yes. Cutting edge fighters? No. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

vs. what? flying wing fighters? AFAIK the B2 is the first flying wing to make it to the production and operational phase. I think the jet flying wing from Northrup in the 50s didn't get past the prototype stage? Correct me if I'm wrong there.

For the record I do enjoy the 229. It is a great plane though. Thanks for that! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Gibbage1
10-05-2005, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:

vs. what? flying wing fighters? AFAIK the B2 is the first flying wing to make it to the production and operational phase. I think the jet flying wing from Northrup in the 50s didn't get past the prototype stage? Correct me if I'm wrong there.

For the record I do enjoy the 229. It is a great plane though. Thanks for that! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Last I checked, I did not say the flying wing was the future. But its a much better design then "conventional". Why has it not been used more? Good question, and its a lot more complex then if it works better or not. Im not even going to get into that.

#1, BOTH designs, flying wing and engines slung under the wing are not supersonic capable. Only exception is the Hustler bomber.

http://www.multied.com/aviation/fpostwar/B58.jpg

Now, engines blended in the wings is another matter. The biggest example is the Sr-71.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/hu/thumb/8/81/Usaf.sr71.750pix.jpg/285px-Usaf.sr71.750pix.jpg

Whats my point? None. I never said the flying wing was the future. But its a lot more efficiant then the "standard" config. But a flying wing cant go supersonic. But a jumbo jet or a Me-262 cant, so what do we have left?

I like flying wing. But they have there place. A flying wing airliner would be GREAT. Or a BWB airliner (Blended Wing and Body), it makes a GREAT bomber. But not a great fighter. But great fighters also dont sling engines under or in the wings.

Aaron_GT
10-05-2005, 01:54 AM
AFAIK the last Meteor was retired from RAF service in 1986, being a PR19 being used as an aerodynamics test bed. The PR19 itself was used until the late 1960s. It could fly higher than a U2, although with rather less range and was operated on overflights over the USSR.

ploughman
10-05-2005, 02:02 AM
I thought the PR19 was a Spitfire? Maybe they both were (PR19s, not Spitfires).

(Edit) I bothered to google. Here's a LINK (http://www.avhub.net/MI_u2meteorpr19incirlik.htm) to the PR19 Meteor.

And here's a link (http://www.spyflight.co.uk/pr19.htm) to the PR19 Spitfire.

luftluuver
10-05-2005, 03:34 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
I thought the PR19 was a Spitfire? Maybe they both were (PR19s, not Spitfires).

A/c name, then Mark number.

The Spitfire was the PR XIX. Arabic numbers not used until the Mk 21.

Daiichidoku
10-05-2005, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
#1, BOTH designs, flying wing and engines slung under the wing are not supersonic capable. Only exception is the Hustler bomber.


I like flying wing. But they have there place. A flying wing airliner would be GREAT. Or a BWB airliner (Blended Wing and Body), it makes a GREAT bomber. But not a great fighter. But great fighters also dont sling engines under or in the wings.


Hustlers are sexxxxxy


flying wings, in most likelihood, will be the chief people-mover of large quantities within the atomosphere by the next century, as they are quite effecient

BWB will probably be seen by then, if not earlier, as well, for hyper-sonic trans-con semi-orbit travel

being effecient as they are....flying wings are certainly contenders for being the ultimate fighter a.c. one day...(at least ones with human pilots) lends itself to stealth very nicely...and spuersonic isnt required with the possible missle systems and even particle beam weapons/defenses (the gun "turret" is back! hehe)

if fast deployment is needed, i can imagine instead of the fighter having ot be supersonic, i can imagine it will have a delivery system being super-or-hypersonic, like a BWB transport....maybe even dropping fighters off after a brief deccel into stratospheric subsonic speed, ala sparrowhawks n arkon/macon

darkhorizon11
10-05-2005, 10:32 AM
Well then we are actually in agreement Gibbage.

Techically those aircraft are delta wing not flying wing but its still pretty close.

Another Concorde like airliner will come to pass, but I think technology has to catch up with our imagination. With todays EPA regulations, fuel shortages, safety requirements (though the Concord was safe), and noise abatement requirements it could be some time.

ARCHIE_CALVERT
10-05-2005, 03:42 PM
Bristol Type 188, although the engines are'nt slung under the wings they are'nt exactly blended either... Still capable of 1.9 Mach though... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://jpcolliat.free.fr/b188/images/b188_03.jpg

Gnasha
10-05-2005, 04:48 PM
@ Daii


BTW, matin-baker is a commercial entity, the bang seat meteors are are NOT in military service anymore...still remarkable that they are flying today, just the same...but then, avengers are still being used for spruce bud-worm spraying in new brunswick, canada...not to mention

the source was Discovery Wings m8 so may not be correct but they were emphatic that they were the longest (consistently?)serving military aircaft in the world.

Daiichidoku
10-05-2005, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by Gnasha:
@ Daii

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">BTW, matin-baker is a commercial entity, the bang seat meteors are are NOT in military service anymore...still remarkable that they are flying today, just the same...but then, avengers are still being used for spruce bud-worm spraying in new brunswick, canada...not to mention

the source was Discovery Wings m8 so may not be correct but they were emphatic that they were the longest (consistently?)serving military aircaft in the world. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

tv is worse than the internet..by far

tv is where indeed, the P 51 won the war



i suspect this is an issue of context...the meteor is military type, still in use today, as opposed to a type in military service for said period of time

that in itself is supect...i have no doubts that the meteor is one of the longest continuously utilized military types in service, military or civil...but the longest?

i wont give myself a headache thinking of all the types that started as military machines (for the express purpose) that have, in one fashion or another, continuously served...

not even counting those types that were used in WWII, then carried on as racers (P 51 et al), or prehaps avro 504s and curtiss jennys...

as far as any type, being in military service proper, surely would have to be B 52s and hercs for longevity in military service

and also no doubt that the brits squeezed every last drop out of meteors, spits, (BAC) lightnings, buccaneers, mossies

p1ngu666
10-05-2005, 06:11 PM
we could of kept the lightning in service longer, was a better fighter than the tornado in some ppls eyes atleast

intial rate of climb of 50,000feet per min http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

nearly as good as the 109s ingame http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

about 10-12x better than a 109 or spit (the later ones) actully http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Daiichidoku
10-05-2005, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
we could of kept the lightning in service longer, was a better fighter than the tornado in some ppls eyes atleast

intial rate of climb of 50,000feet per min http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

nearly as good as the 109s ingame http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

about 10-12x better than a 109 or spit (the later ones) actully http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif


yea, it is too bad...but england not thinking about nailing badgers and bisons so much anymore as having a strike capability (wasnt that what the jaguar for supposed toi be for? lol)along with decent fighter attrbutes

the real shame is the TSR2..as unlikely looking as an attacker can get, it was kick-***!

im kanadian, so with the arrow mess, i can more than sympathize with britons over that one

fordfan25
10-05-2005, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:

The story forget to tell you that gibbage asked for money from people here to make this plane for FB/PF... And got money...

The bit of story YOUR forgetting is that I offered everyone there money back. Nobody took me up on this. Why?

Go run and hide Frenchy. You were just owned troll boy. Your such a failure. Now, you gonna start talking french again to try to make it look like you have a point when you dont? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

right on gibb. imo your one of the most valued members in the comunnity "besides me ofcourse lol" ignore the haters. sometimes stuff just does not go as planed .... pf is a example LOL j/k

Gibbage1
10-05-2005, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:

right on gibb. imo your one of the most valued members in the comunnity "besides me ofcourse lol" ignore the haters.


Thanks. P.S. I offered Oleg to do a -4.... No go. Copywrite stuff, ya know.



sometimes stuff just does not go as planed .... pf is a example LOL j/k

That would be a LOT more funny if it was not so true... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Aaron_GT
10-06-2005, 02:18 AM
we could of kept the lightning in service longer, was a better fighter than the tornado in some ppls eyes atleast

The problem with the Lightning was that is had short range. It was the jet equivalent of the Spitfire: originally designed for point defence against fighters but pushed into having longer range when that role was no longer so critical. In the end the only action it saw was as a strike aircraft.

By the time it was retired in the 1980s the writing was on the wall for the USSR and the threat was from missiles rather than aircraft anyway, so it was a plane whose time had gone and strike aircraft and tactical bombers (Jaguar and Tornado) were more important.

We nearly didn't get the lightning at all. It took a while to develop, and the whole interceptor class was nearly replaced by missiles as that was seen as possibly cheaper. But then it became apparent that it was possible for aircraft to fly above some missiles.

nakamura_kenji
10-06-2005, 02:28 AM
"the real shame is the TSR2..as unlikely looking as an attacker can get, it was kick-***!"

i not sure true not but once read in testing tsr-2 out ran lightning only using single engine other switch off 0_0

lightening stop because it not carry enough fuel think, father say once talk to pilot and tell him that if war for them would be one way trip as would fly to intercept far away britian as possible so not have enough fuel return v_v. also very poor weapon load

miss british figther design much inventive(harrier example) now get boring design because made by many country v_v

WOLFMondo
10-06-2005, 03:10 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:

Now, engines blended in the wings is another matter. The biggest example is the Sr-71.


Dehavilland Comet! Still going strong as the Nimrod. Not forgetting the Canberra, still one of the best aerial photographic platforms going.