PDA

View Full Version : p80 vs 262?



fordfan25
03-10-2004, 07:04 PM
hay guys. how does the p80 stack up aginst the me262 in the game?i have to wait till monday to find out 4 my self. no store that i can find in north fl. has aep yethttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

fordfan25
03-10-2004, 07:04 PM
hay guys. how does the p80 stack up aginst the me262 in the game?i have to wait till monday to find out 4 my self. no store that i can find in north fl. has aep yethttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

BuzzU
03-10-2004, 07:13 PM
The P-80 turns the 262 a nice shade of flames.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzz
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto/mcguire3.jpg

_VR_ScorpionWorm
03-10-2004, 07:17 PM
I love it, I don't have as many problems as I did with the 262. just my opinion.

"He went like this, we went like that, I called to Hollywood 'Were'd he go?', Hollywood called back, 'Were'd WHO go'-TOPGUN

SkyChimp
03-10-2004, 07:18 PM
Unfortunately, it's less of a competition than I thought it would be. And I wasn't expecting much. The Me-262 dives well, though. The He-162 is by far more competetive.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Zyzbot
03-10-2004, 07:19 PM
I like the He-162 better than either!

Butcherbird
03-10-2004, 07:28 PM
I agree "The peoples fighter" rocks!

Charos
03-10-2004, 07:48 PM
As long as my two Engine Bolts dont Sheer and the Boy Scouts DONT Steal my HE-162 Mistaking it for fire Wood - Im Flying that Against the P80.

But Would I attack a B17 in a HE162 if I had a ME262 to Take off in? -- No way.

I have sent several B17s to the Grave in a HE162 but it had to be sent back to the Local Cabinet Maker for a little attention.

Menthol_moose
03-10-2004, 07:50 PM
whats the guns on the P-80 like ?

http://www.ljuhome.com/images/own3d/owned-granny.gif

HangerQueen
03-10-2004, 08:48 PM
Menthol Moose, please tell me that your animated sig is just that - an animation http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

"You can try, but it is a difficult and thankless task to compare the combat qualities of aircraft using reference book data. There are simply too many nuances to consider." N. G. Golodnikov

KarayaEine
03-10-2004, 08:52 PM
The P-80 flys circles around the 262. Plus no engine fires! Until AEP I loved flying the 262 but it's now so outclassed that it's no fun to go head to head with the swallow.

However, try the P-80 and the Dora at 7500m. That's a challenge.

Johann

Horrido!
"We need more ammo!"
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid106/p5f881fba318d7f0779ac1d9df0ace079/f96e6284.jpg

"Achtung Kommandant, sind Sie Fl¤che auf Feuer"

Hristo_
03-10-2004, 11:37 PM
I understand that 262 wasn't the YP-80s adversary in real life. If the war dragged on, (Y)P-80 would face other planes as He 162 and perhaps Go229.

So, how does Go229 do against YP-80 ?

http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg
"Boom and Zoom does NOT equal Hit and Run. Not the same thing, no way, no how. BnZ means I manage my energy state (while judging yours) to keep myself from getting into your sights in the vertical.
Turn and Burn is the first refuge of the uneducated, Hit and Run the last refuge of the incompetent, while BnZ is the sign of a true master of Air Combat."
-Moggy, 666th Internet Daemons

DaBallz
03-11-2004, 04:18 AM
MentholMoose, please remove that offensive sig.
Although I got to believe the animation is
computer generated I find child abuse not to be
a laughing matter.

Make it go away.

Da...

BoCfuss
03-11-2004, 06:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:
MentholMoose, please remove that offensive sig.
Although I got to believe the animation is
computer generated I find child abuse not to be
a laughing matter.

Make it go away.

Da...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That old lady running isn't too pretty either.

LEXX_Luthor
03-11-2004, 06:26 AM
hehe its funny, but I don't like the OWNED part. Not needed obviously.

EDIT-- but yeah, I can see it being kinda crappy sig for alot of people.


__________________
"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
"I don't have the V2 or B25s, so I'm going to reinstall" ~Bearcat99
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

[This message was edited by LEXX_Luthor on Thu March 11 2004 at 05:35 AM.]

TgD Thunderbolt56
03-11-2004, 06:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristo_:

So, how does Go229 do against YP-80 ?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



This is the matchup that I like the best (even if it is rather far-fetched)

our squad flew 3 vs 3 the other night and the YP-80's prevailed...barely. All of the 229's were shot down with the loss of one YP-80 and another shot up badly. It was quite fun though and started around 3000m alt.



http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/il2sig2.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
03-11-2004, 06:31 AM
Our YP~80 is very slow above 7km, same max speed as Ta152H. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Go~229 and He~162 much faster up there. Just a thought.


__________________
"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
"I don't have the V2 or B25s, so I'm going to reinstall" ~Bearcat99
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

BaldieJr
03-11-2004, 07:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:
MentholMoose, please remove that offensive sig.
Although I got to believe the animation is
computer generated I find child abuse not to be
a laughing matter.

Make it go away.

Da...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm not offended. I think its funny. It brightened my day actually.

Of course, your attempt to be moral arbitor of the forums put me right back into a bad mood.

In my mind, you are the one who is offensive. Get a sense of humor and stop acting like a victim.

Signature:
Note: you may include UBBCode, UBBCode Images and HTML in your signature. However, if the forum you are posting to does not allow these codes, your signature will not display as intended.

ELEM
03-11-2004, 07:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:
MentholMoose, please remove that offensive sig.
Although I got to believe the animation is
computer generated I find child abuse not to be
a laughing matter.

Make it go away.

Da...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm not offended. I think its funny. It brightened my day actually.

Of course, your attempt to be moral arbitor of the forums put me right back into a bad mood.

In my mind, you are the one who is offensive. Get a sense of humor and stop acting like a victim.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this the same BaldieJr that started this thread:-
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=668102062&p=1

The hypocrisy, the hypocrisy!

I wouldn't join any club that would have ME as member!

Zayets
03-11-2004, 07:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:
MentholMoose, please remove that offensive sig.
Although I got to believe the animation is
computer generated I find child abuse not to be
a laughing matter.

Make it go away.

Da...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's your problem , dude?
This "movie" is so old that I can't even see it as an offensive one.Sen this one 5 years ago , the original was with the same "actors" , but with the kiddo playing on the railway.And is not the first time I see it on this very forum.So , chill out.

Zayets out
http://server5.uploadit.org/files/Zayets-iar80pic.jpg

fordfan25
03-11-2004, 09:52 AM
i thought that the p80 would be fast up high. sense that seemed to be the way the us was starting to make thayr planes o well ill stick with my stang and bolt up high.and doesnt the p80 have 6 50.s? looks like that old lady is geting some distence. must be some kind of a record lol http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

BpGemini
03-11-2004, 10:00 AM
The P-80 pownz the 262.
One half second burst at either 262 engine and it's night night time.


Marshmellows anyone?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.blitzpigs.com/images/P-39_BlitzPig_Sig_01.jpg
IL-2 original P-39 vet soon to be P-63 vet.

CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

fordfan25
03-11-2004, 10:35 AM
i find it strange how just a year or two can change a super wepone into a wast of metal.

fordfan25
03-11-2004, 10:36 AM
sorry i ment weapon............i think i realy need to learn how to speeeel

BlitzPig_DDT
03-11-2004, 11:26 AM
You mean the 262? It was never really a "super weapon". It could prey upon and generally terrorize props and bombers, so long as it wasn't caught low and slow (especially by Jugs. lol), but it was such an early jet, and had such poor engines, that it was rather draggy, low thrust to weight thing with poor turning capabilities.

The YP-80 on the other hand, had the benefits of more research on everything to aid it. The biggest help was the higher output, more reliable engine, which could be put inside the fuse, eliminating a lot of drag from the twin nacelle design.

Plus, it seemed that Willy liked putting the bare minimum needed to fly wing area on his planes too for some reason. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

Magister__Ludi
03-11-2004, 12:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
You mean the 262? It was never really a "super weapon". It could prey upon and generally terrorize props and bombers, so long as it wasn't caught low and slow (especially by Jugs. lol), but it was such an early jet, and had such poor engines, that it was rather draggy, low thrust to weight thing with poor turning capabilities.

The YP-80 on the other hand, had the benefits of more research on everything to aid it. The biggest help was the higher output, more reliable engine, which could be put inside the fuse, eliminating a lot of drag from the twin nacelle design.

Plus, it seemed that Willy liked putting the bare minimum needed to fly wing area on his planes too for some reason. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Hi DDT. Though I agree that in '46 P-80 was a superior fighter, it never became a better bomber destroyer and could never rival Me-262 against piston fighters because of it's poor armament. With only 6x0.50in you can down almost nothing except jets, you cannot put a significant amount of lead on the target unless you want to get slow (which you should not in any plane, but especially in a jet).

In '46 Jumos and BMW were still the best jet engines produced, when a new generation of jet engines arrived. P-80's J33 remained in development until '46, because it was very unreliable before. The main defect of the british and american engines was the poor fuel injection, for which they had no prior experience (no carburated jets, sorryhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). This gave the very sensitive throttle which now only stops the engine, though they also should be able to set the engine on fire. Jumo-004B and BMW-003 on the other hand reached 150 hours of service life on it's last series (it's main problem before '45), the allies scavenged the LW bone yards in desperation looking for those particular types of engines to fit on their first experimental or even production jets (like Russians and French did) or to study them and the captured LW jet planes (like British and Americans).

Also Me-262 was a very tough plane, for example Steinhoff's Me-262 rockets (meant for destroying bombers!) exploded after he pancaked the plane on a failed take-off. He left the plane in one piece, though with severe burns. He made a full recovery after the accident. That does not look like what we have in the game right now. Engine fires after just a couple of hits, or even worse, wing fires though they do not carry fuel, make the Me-262 DM very inaccurate. Me-262 engines should be able to absorb exactly the same number of hits like J33 does. Neither one was armoured, so there was no difference between them.
And the number of 30mm hits P-80 is able to absorb is also wrong. I can consistently put 5 hits in it. Well LW calculated that an average of 3 hits were enough to down a B-17, so that should be fixed.

I understand your enthusiasm DDT, but try a more objective perspective.

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Thu March 11 2004 at 11:27 AM.]

Gibbage1
03-11-2004, 12:43 PM
The P-80 was never made to intercept bombers. If it was, they would have put a lot more firepower into it. It was a fighter fighter. The P-80's nose section was designed a lot like the P-38. It was very adaptable and they tested many configurations including 4x 20MM that pointed up at like a 30 degree angle for bomber intercepter. Its just that nobody was using bombers but us!!! So we did not need it. You can agree that for what roal the P-80 plays, it has MORE then enough firepower for taking on aircraft like the Gotha, Me-262, and He-162? Yes?

Gib

ASH at S-MART
03-11-2004, 12:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The P-80 was never made to intercept bombers. If it was, they would have put a lot more firepower into it. It was a fighter fighter. The P-80's nose section was designed a lot like the P-38. It was very adaptable and they tested many configurations including 4x 20MM that pointed up at like a 30 degree angle for bomber intercepter. Its just that nobody was using bombers but us!!! So we did not need it. You can agree that for what roal the P-80 plays, it has MORE then enough firepower for taking on aircraft like the Gotha, Me-262, and He-162? Yes?

Gib<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>YES! And right about no need for big guns.. We were not in the business of defending aginst bombers.. At lest not bombers of our quality.. The jap bombers of the pacific were easly handled by the .50 cal

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

Gibbage1
03-11-2004, 12:47 PM
As for your claims of engine reliability. The Me-262's engines were VERY VERY poor. The metals used in them gave the engine a 10 hour service life. Many P-80's are still flying today with th J-33 engine. How many Jumo engines are still able to run?

The axial flow jet was simply too advanced for its day. There was not the technology available at the time to make it a viable option. The proof is that the a single J-33 engine put out almost as much as two Juma 003's!!! So much for your better engine arguement. Sure it was more advanced, but it was TOO advanced to work properly at the time, and in a war.

Gibbage1
03-11-2004, 12:50 PM
Its funny. The F4F started out with 4 .50 cal. It was later upgraded to 6 .50 cal in the -4 model. Later it was deamed that 6 .50 cals were to much firepower and did not justify the extra weight so they went BACK to 4 .50 cals in the FM2's.

A F4F-3 with 4 .50 cals downed 5 Japanese Betty bombers in a single pass by Lt. O'Hare to become the first WWII Navy Ace. Clearly what we were shooting at did not need 30MM's. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
YES! And right about no need for big guns.. We were not in the business of defending aginst bombers.. At lest not bombers of our quality.. The jap bombers of the pacific were easly handled by the .50 cal

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Magister__Ludi
03-11-2004, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The P-80 was never made to intercept bombers. If it was, they would have put a lot more firepower into it. It was a fighter fighter. The P-80's nose section was designed a lot like the P-38. It was very adaptable and they tested many configurations including 4x 20MM that pointed up at like a 30 degree angle for bomber intercepter. Its just that nobody was using bombers but us!!! So we did not need it. You can agree that for what roal the P-80 plays, it has MORE then enough firepower for taking on aircraft like the Gotha, Me-262, and He-162? Yes?

Gib<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes, but it does not have enough firepower to kill piston fighters, you can put only a few hits with it (if you stay fast). Make a test online and see which, Me-262 or P-80, gets a higher score against piston fighters.

I have to remaind you that when those two fighters entered in service, most of the enemy fighters were still powered by piston engines, and there'll still be for almost 5 more years.

ASH at S-MART
03-11-2004, 12:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Its funny. The F4F started out with 4 .50 cal. It was later upgraded to 6 .50 cal in the -4 model. Later it was deamed that 6 .50 cals were to much firepower and did not justify the extra weight so they went BACK to 4 .50 cals in the FM2's.

A F4F-3 with 4 .50 cals downed 5 Japanese Betty bombers in a single pass by Lt. O'Hare to become the first WWII Navy Ace. Clearly what we were shooting at did not need 30MM's. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally! And a simular story with the F4u they tried 20mm on it, then went back to .50s.. It was not until later on, when the F4u role became a mud mover in Korea that they went back to 20mm.

.50 cal is the perfect size for fighter on fighter in WWII era.. The more guns and more ammo translated into a better probality of you getting a hit.. And in RL that is what matered to escorts.. They didnt have to blow the wing off of a 109 attacking a formation of B17s.. They just had to wake his A up to cause him to break off his attack.. And the dmg done by the .50s was enough for that.. Gravity would do the rest after the pilot bailed out because of THIS or THAT being damgaed

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

ASH at S-MART
03-11-2004, 12:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
Yes, but it does not have enough firepower to kill piston fighters, you can put only a few hits with it (if you stay fast). Make a test online and see which, Me-262 or P-80, gets a higher score against piston fighters.

I have to remaind you that when those two fighters entered in service, most of the enemy fighters were still powered by piston engines, and there'll still be for almost 5 more years.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes.. but the P80 was not intended to counter *piston* fighters, it was intended to deal with *jets* attacking *bombers*.. The existing P51 *piston* was dealying with the existing enmy *pistons* just fine.. As a mater of FACT, due to the TATICS the P51 *piston* delt with the enmy *jets* just fine too! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

Magister__Ludi
03-11-2004, 01:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
As for your claims of engine reliability. The Me-262's engines were VERY VERY poor. The metals used in them gave the engine a 10 hour service life. Many P-80's are still flying today with th J-33 engine. How many Jumo engines are still able to run?

The axial flow jet was simply too advanced for its day. There was not the technology available at the time to make it a viable option. The proof is that the a single J-33 engine put out almost as much as two Juma 003's!!! So much for your better engine arguement. Sure it was more advanced, but it was TOO advanced to work properly at the time, and in a war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


None of the P-80 flying 5 years later flew the same type of J-33 tested on YP-80 or first series of P-80A. They were dramatically unreliable, because of imature fuel injection. It does not matter that the alloys used on J-33 were better (initially) than those used on first generation of Jumos, if first series of J-33 is very prone to catch fire or flame out. In comparison Jumos had much better throttleability (except below 6000RPM, RPM range not used in flight), and BMW was even better. Also 20-50 engine life is only for the first series of Jumo-004, the later Jumos like B-3 variant had 150 hours engine life and they were fitted on operational Me-262 from winter of '45 (for example Me-262 night fighters were fitted with B-3 variant of Jumo-004).

Jumos were only difficult to start up, but later engines like BMW-003 or He S 011 were matured axial engines. BMW-003 flew almost unmodified for quite a few years, with MiG-9 and it's chinese copy (Jumos flew also with russian planes, but they had modifications and were not considered as reliable as BMW-003).

BpGemini
03-11-2004, 01:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
You mean the 262? It was never really a "super weapon". It could prey upon and generally terrorize props and bombers, so long as it wasn't caught low and slow (especially by Jugs. lol), but it was such an early jet, and had such poor engines, that it was rather draggy, low thrust to weight thing with poor turning capabilities.

The YP-80 on the other hand, had the benefits of more research on everything to aid it. The biggest help was the higher output, more reliable engine, which could be put inside the fuse, eliminating a lot of drag from the twin nacelle design.

Plus, it seemed that Willy liked putting the bare minimum needed to fly wing area on his planes too for some reason. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Hi DDT. Though I agree that in '46 P-80 was a superior fighter, it never became a better bomber destroyer and could never rival Me-262 against piston fighters because of it's poor armament. With only 6x0.50in you can down almost nothing except jets, you cannot put a significant amount of lead on the target unless you want to get slow (which you should not in any plane, but especially in a jet).

In '46 Jumos and BMW were still the best jet engines produced, when a new generation of jet engines arrived. P-80's J33 remained in development until '46, because it was very unreliable before. The main defect of the british and american engines was the poor fuel injection, for which they had no prior experience (no carburated jets, sorryhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). This gave the very sensitive throttle which now only stops the engine, though they also should be able to set the engine on fire. Jumo-004B and BMW-003 on the other hand reached 150 hours of service life on it's last series (it's main problem before '45), the allies scavenged the LW bone yards in desperation looking for those particular types of engines to fit on their first experimental or even production jets (like Russians and French did) or to study them and the captured LW jet planes (like British and Americans).

Also Me-262 was a very tough plane, for example Steinhoff's Me-262 rockets (meant for destroying bombers!) exploded after he pancaked the plane on a failed take-off. He left the plane in one piece, though with severe burns. He made a full recovery after the accident. That does not look like what we have in the game right now. Engine fires after just a couple of hits, or even worse, wing fires though they do not carry fuel, make the Me-262 DM very inaccurate. Me-262 engines should be able to absorb exactly the same number of hits like J33 does. Neither one was armoured, so there was no difference between them.
And the number of 30mm hits P-80 is able to absorb is also wrong. I can consistently put 5 hits in it. Well LW calculated that an average of 3 hits were enough to down a B-17, so that should be fixed.

I understand your enthusiasm DDT, but try a more objective perspective.

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Thu March 11 2004 at 11:27 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm sure DDT can speak for himself but I should point out that he didn't say the P-80 was better at downing bombers. If he did I missed it.

To summerize what I got from DDT's post:
Me-262 pownzed Bombers.
P-80 pownzed Me-262.

Maybe you should try a more perceptive approach.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.blitzpigs.com/images/P-39_BlitzPig_Sig_01.jpg
IL-2 original P-39 vet soon to be P-63 vet.

CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

ASH at S-MART
03-11-2004, 01:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Sure it was more advanced, but it was TOO advanced to work properly at the time, and in a war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally! As it was for the V2.. Sure it was neat and all.. ROCKETS WOW! But the guidance systems were just not up to the task at that time.. ROCKETS didnt become vialbe for years after the war ended, once the guidance systems caught up to the task at hand. Germany made alot of mistakes like that.. wasted alot of money and time on wizz bang iteams that were NEAT in some aspects.. but due to something else was a waste.. In the sense the money and time would have been beter spent on more doable items.. But.. they knew early on they could not match the produciton numbers of the allieds.. Thus they were DESPERATE.. Which I think explains most of the wiz bang items they TRIED to come up with.

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

Gibbage1
03-11-2004, 01:38 PM
Ludi was talking about the 6 .50 cals being weak for downing bombers, and I just was pointing out that it was never made for bombers, but for fighters. More spacifically, jet fighters. And everyone has seen how alergic the Axis jets are to .50 cal's. I have flamed 262's from 1000M away. Its a spacific bread jet killer.

Yes the He-162 is a better fighter, but I somehow doubt it would have been that good if it was in service. From what I remember hearing, it was quite a hand full to fly! Definitly not for inexperanced pilots, and the Nazi's intended to put KIDS in these things! Its got such short stubby wings, a high COG, and a very short frame. Yet it turns like a bat, and is quite stable. WTF? It goes against the basics of aerodynamics. Fortunatly it has little ammo and not the best in firepower. If it had Mk-108's, wow. That would be inside! Im guessing that two Mk-108's in that little thing would give the pilot whiplash at the least. I dont even know how Me-163 pilots sirvived firing those things off. Must have rattled them good.

Gib

BlitzPig_DDT
03-11-2004, 01:48 PM
Wow. This thread kinda sums up this whole forum.

BTW - someone get Gibbage his pills, seems he forgot them again. lol http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Where to start? Magister_Ludi, Gemini is correct in his summation of my post. I'm not sure what you thought I was saying to spark all that. In any event, what you think of as "reliable" and what I think of it as are 2 different things. By "reliable", at least in this context, I meant it's total service life, which, for the Jumo004As was basically about 10 hours, as Gibbage pointed out. A 10 hour service life is WAY too short to allow an engine to be jammed into a fuselage. Especially when you don't have the time, or man power, or aircraft, to spare to spend long times replacing engines. It's gotta be done ASAP. Also, they were rather low output as well. This meant 2 were needed, and they had to be outside the fuselage in nacelles. That immediately raised parasitic drag substantially (remember, it increases exponentially with speed). Plus it also reduced lower wing area as well, cutting off some of the newtonian effect of lift on the under side. Plus, it was rather heavy for it's wing area. Not sure why it has such a sweep to it either. It could have gotten away with less sweep to improve low speed handline a bit, and larger overall wings to improve overall handling. But - if Willy had a powerful enough, long enough lasting turbine to use 1 and put it inside, it would have made a world of differenence and been a substantial improvement.

Also, have you seen the footage of 190s losing wings like they were crackers under the fire of P-51s? 6 50s go a long way. It wasn't "weak" until Korea when fire times were drastically reduced against planes as tough as the MiG15. But even there, with the ace maker sights, they were still swatting them out of the air.

Ash, von Braun was ahead of the entire world. Period. The US took him and damn near everyone fron Peenemunde and used them to make NASA and get us to the moon. lol The V1 was also the start of the US cruise missile program.

The German designs were not borne out of desperation, but out of pure genious and vision. They just didn't have the manpower, resrouces, or coordination to pull it off. Ever take a gander at the Nobel Prize for Physics winners list? lol One heck of a lot of Germans in there. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

BlitzPig_DDT
03-11-2004, 01:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Yes the He-162 is a better fighter, but I somehow doubt it would have been that good if it was in service. From what I remember hearing, it was quite a hand full to fly! Definitly not for inexperanced pilots, and the Nazi's intended to put KIDS in these things! Its got such short stubby wings, a high COG, and a very short frame. Yet it turns like a bat, and is quite stable. WTF? It goes against the basics of aerodynamics. Fortunatly it has little ammo and not the best in firepower. If it had Mk-108's, wow. That would be inside! Im guessing that two Mk-108's in that little thing would give the pilot whiplash at the least. I dont even know how Me-163 pilots sirvived firing those things off. Must have rattled them good.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would it do any good to point out that it was a mere 2800kilos take off weight (which means full ammo and fuel)? An early prototype did 850kph on the deck, and it wasn't even an all out run. A later prototype had started to lose some of the glue (from a poor gluing job) on one of the wings and was limted to 500kph for a brass trial run, but still did what was described as "aggressive maneuvers". The wing tips dealt with the only bad characteristic (other than manufacturing defects, but that's not so much a design issue lol) of the early prototypes which was an effect described as "snaking" at high speed.

I find the modeling of that aircraft to be quite good, and accurate based on what I have read. I wonder why you suddenly doubt Oleg's abilities. Is it because a LW plane performs very well? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

fordfan25
03-11-2004, 01:56 PM
wow the great and wise GIBBAGE posting in MY thread ......IM NOT WORTHY IM NOT WORTHY. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

ASH at S-MART
03-11-2004, 01:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Ash, von Braun was ahead of the entire world. Period.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Never said he wasnt.. Only that technolgy of the ROCKET exceeded the technolgy to GUIDE it.. Sure they got them off the ground.. And could get them to the *general* area.. But bfd! Wasnt tell years later they could guide them to within a few 100 feet of the intended target.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
The US took him and damn near everyone fron Peenemunde and used them to make NASA and get us to the moon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, never said they didnt! On that note, Im *sure* that if Germany would have won the war they would have *took* everyone out in New Mexico that worked on the A-Bomb! A weapon that got alot more bang for the buck! Pun intended! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
lol The V1 was also the start of the US cruise missile program.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Yes, and the Horton bothers started the B2 program too.. NOT!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
The German designs were not borne out of desperation, but out of pure genious and vision.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Emmm sorry, I dont agree with you at all!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
They just didn't have the manpower, resrouces, or coordination to pull it off.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Or the *suporting* techonlogy to make them really useful

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Ever take a gander at the Nobel Prize for Physics winners list? lol One heck of a lot of Germans in there. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! BFD!

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

Magister__Ludi
03-11-2004, 02:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Ludi was talking about the 6 .50 cals being weak for downing bombers, and I just was pointing out that it was never made for bombers, but for fighters. More spacifically, jet fighters. And everyone has seen how alergic the Axis jets are to .50 cal's. I have flamed 262's from 1000M away. Its a spacific bread jet killer. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage you're confusing a game with reality. At no point could one flame the engines of Me-262 from 1000m away, neither could flame them with a couple of hits from 300m, like it happens in the game.
If you want to give something in support of your claim that Jumos was more prone to fire than J-33 if hit please do. But don't try to prove it with examples from the game, unless you want to look like a fool of course.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Yes the He-162 is a better fighter, but I somehow doubt it would have been that good if it was in service. From what I remember hearing, it was quite a hand full to fly! Definitly not for inexperanced pilots, and the Nazi's intended to put KIDS in these things! Its got such short stubby wings, a high COG, and a very short frame. Yet it turns like a bat, and is quite stable. WTF? It goes against the basics of aerodynamics. Fortunatly it has little ammo and not the best in firepower. If it had Mk-108's, wow. That would be inside! Im guessing that two Mk-108's in that little thing would give the pilot whiplash at the least. I dont even know how Me-163 pilots sirvived firing those things off. Must have rattled them good.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


High COG means high above the wing, make sure you understand the concept Gib.
He-162 had wonderful flying characteristics as described by Eric Brown who flew it. It was meant for pilots that only did a glider school before, it was very docile plane. I see that you have very strong opinions about early German jets, have you flown them all Gib?

Mk-108 was a low recoil weapon, F. Stiegler says that you could not feel them fire on Me-262 (4 of them!!).

Magister__Ludi
03-11-2004, 02:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
They just didn't have the manpower, resrouces, or coordination to pull it off.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Or the *suporting* techonlogy to make them really useful

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Ever take a gander at the Nobel Prize for Physics winners list? lol One heck of a lot of Germans in there. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! BFD!

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Tagert, stop spamming this forum!

ASH at S-MART
03-11-2004, 02:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
They just didn't have the manpower, resrouces, or coordination to pull it off.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Or the *suporting* techonlogy to make them really useful

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Ever take a gander at the Nobel Prize for Physics winners list? lol One heck of a lot of Germans in there. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! BFD!

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Tagert, stop spamming this forum!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>target spamming? What is that?

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

Magister__Ludi
03-11-2004, 02:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:

I find the modeling of that aircraft to be quite good, and accurate based on what I have read. I wonder why you suddenly doubt Oleg's abilities. Is it because a LW plane performs very well? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, he now fears run069s after he had his @ss handled too many times by those run09s http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

Time to learn something new Gib, "pull the stick and turn" tactics won't help you anymore.

Koohullin
03-11-2004, 02:13 PM
Metropolitan-Vickers
"F.2 "Beryl As far back as 1939, Metropolitan-Vickers, a Manchester firm that specialized in steam turbines, had been working on what would become the first British axial-flow turbojet engine. The company had been working on a turboprop design as early in as 1939 but this idea was proving overly complicated. By 1940 the success of the Whittle engines suggested a turbojet might be a better road to go down.. Work began in July 1940, on an axial-flow engine designed by Hayne Constantit at the RAE, with a nine-stage compressor, an annular combustion chamber, and a two-stage turbine, By November 1941, the F.2 was was producing 1,800 lb of thrust on the test bench, with flight tests beginning in the spring of 1943 with the engine fitted in to a Avro Lancaster and then into a modified Gloster Meteor DG204/G which had it's first flight on the 13/11/1943. The F.2 was refined into the operational "F.2/4", with a ten-stage compressor, single-stage turbine, with 3,230, 3750, 4000 lb of thrust."

Armstrong Whitworth
ASX Designed in 1942 and built in 1943. The AWX was a 14 stage axial-flow engine making around 2,600 lb of thrust. Never used in any production aircraft, how ever it was developed into a turboprop engine delivering 3760 hp, known as the ASP and given the name "Python". This engine was fitted into the Westland "Wyvern"


General-Electric
"J-35 / TG-180 The US's first axial flow turbojet, developed from the turboprop TG-100 / TG-31 project, the TG-180 had an output of 2,545lb of thrust, being run for the first time on the 21/4/1944. It would be some time until it was fitted into an aircraft and didn't perform it's first flight until 26/2/1946 when it powered the Republic XP-84 "Thunderjet" on it's first flight."
http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Jets45-Engines.htm

And a small reminder that the Russians used a British jet engine in their MiG 15.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The Allies had no truble shooting LW bombers out of the sky, if they could find any, with the M2HB.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Where is your proof that the J-33 was a 'bad' engine.

BlitzPig_DDT
03-11-2004, 02:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
The US took him and damn near everyone fron Peenemunde and used them to make NASA and get us to the moon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, never said they didnt! On that note, Im *sure* that if Germany would have won the war they would have *took* everyone out in New Mexico that worked on the A-Bomb! A weapon that got alot more bang for the buck! Pun intended! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would've just been getting everyone they chased out back, like Einstein. lol

von Braun headed NASA. It wasn't a case of simply adding a little expertise to fill in the blanks.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
The V1 was also the start of the US cruise missile program.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Yes, and the Horton bothers started the B2 program too.. NOT!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Wing was a product of 3 visionaries, 1 singly, 2 in a pair, each independent and co-existing.

The very first post-war US cruise missiles were re-painted V1s.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
The German designs were not borne out of desperation, but out of pure genious and vision.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Emmm sorry, I dont agree with you at all!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Ever take a gander at the Nobel Prize for Physics winners list? lol One heck of a lot of Germans in there. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! BFD!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. This says it all. That you are too biased to really get through to. I can't say why that is the case, only that it is.

I will say this though, an overwhelming amount of what we have today in terms of knowledge and technology came from the work of Einstein, Plank, Heisenberg, Mach, and Schroedinger. The current state of rocketry is exceedingly influence by von Braun, and the existing state of aerodynamics is exceedingly influenced by the aero-engineers of Germany from WWI-WWII. Ditto submarine technology (WWI Germany). And air to air combat was all but invented, and certainly perfected by the knights of the Central Powers German Air Force. You do know that the Dicta Boelcke is still taught to fighter pilots to this very day, right?

I seriously doubt you will believe or accept any of that. Or that I'm not here to pump Deutschlan œber-alles. I'm just pointing out the facts. Even if you don't want to accept them.

BTW - I guess I should probably point out, just for the record, I stated short comings of the 262 in this thread, and the strength of the ma-deuce (these things get lost in the shuffle all too conveniently lol), and IMO, the best, most capable piston fighter of the war, and the best carrier fighter, were US. Specifically Grumman. And the same plane. lol

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

Magister__Ludi
03-11-2004, 02:16 PM
DDT come on, ignore this troll, ASH_SMART is good ole Tagert, he was banned a month ago.

Koohullin
03-11-2004, 02:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Gibbage you're confusing a game with reality. At no point could one flame the engines of Me-262 from 1000m away, neither could flame them with a couple of hits from 300m, like it happens in the game.
If you want to give something in support of your claim that Jumos was more prone to fire than J-33 if hit please do. But don't try to prove it with examples from the game, unless you want to look like a fool of course.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nowotny's a/c was hit at long range(500m) and died in the ensuing crash.

Kdo Nowotny's return to operations on Nov. 1 1944 resulted in the loss of 2 Me262s shot down by American piston fighers with only .50" weapons. (they were not landing or taking off)

ASH at S-MART
03-11-2004, 02:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Would've just been getting everyone they chased out back, like Einstein. lol<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah.. news flash.. Einstein was not in New Mexico and didnt work on the project.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
von Braun headed NASA. It wasn't a case of simply adding a little expertise to fill in the blanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually.. I forget the gentalmans name.. But there was a guy in the 30s here in the USA that was big into rockets.. He developed the THRUST PADDLES that the Germans copied on the V2.. The US didnt bother developing rockets during the war, even though we had people that could, because we realised early on that the ability to guide the did not exist.. Thus they would only be good as a TERROR (Vengance) weapon.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
The Wing was a product of 3 visionaries, 1 singly, 2 in a pair, each independent and co-existing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If that is your way of saying tht Norton developed the B2 without any help from Hortan.. Then I agree

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
The very first post-war US cruise missiles were re-painted V1s.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Well, if a flying bomb is all it takes to call something the grand father of the cruise missiles.. Then why not credit the Chinese?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Yes. This says it all. That you are too biased to really get through to. I can't say why that is the case, only that it is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually it is you.. In that you seem to think that just because there are a few germans listed for the nobel prize it means they are thus better in some way.. PLEASE! There are plenty of people from all over that recived nobel prizes!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
I will say this though, an overwhelming amount of what we have today in terms of knowledge and technology came from the work of Einstein, Plank, Heisenberg, Mach, and Schroedinger.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Only because you are ignorant of the others that did work in the area.. Newton said it best.. I can see so far because I stand on the shoulders of the great men that came before me.. You would have us belive that Germany was in some vacume and came up with everything on their own.. They didnt!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
The current state of rocketry is exceedingly influence by von Braun, and the existing state of aerodynamics is exceedingly influenced by the aero-engineers of Germany from WWI-WWII.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not and Not

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Ditto submarine technology (WWI Germany). And air to air combat was all but invented, and certainly perfected by the knights of the Central Powers German Air Force.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL.. And you were the one that said "this says it all" God get a mirror!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
You do know that the Dicta Boelcke is still taught to fighter pilots to this very day, right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Yes.. Germany is great! They did everything ever done in the world.. EXCEPT WIN! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
I seriously doubt you will believe or accept any of that. Or that I'm not here to pump Deutschlan œber-alles. I'm just pointing out the facts. Even if you don't want to accept them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your History Channel Facts are limited.. You need to get out more!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
BTW - I guess I should probably point out, just for the record, I stated short comings of the 262 in this thread, and the strength of the ma-deuce (these things get lost in the shuffle all too conveniently lol), and IMO, the best, most capable piston fighter of the war, and the best carrier fighter, were US. Specifically Grumman. And the same plane. lol<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL Back peddling so soon?

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

Magister__Ludi
03-11-2004, 02:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Koohullin:
Metropolitan-Vickers
"_F.2 "Beryl_ As far back as 1939, Metropolitan-Vickers, a Manchester firm that specialized in steam turbines, had been working on what would become the _first British axial-flow_ turbojet engine. The company had been working on a turboprop design as early in as 1939 but this idea was proving overly complicated. By 1940 the success of the Whittle engines suggested a turbojet might be a better road to go down.. Work began in July 1940, on an axial-flow engine designed by Hayne Constantit at the RAE, with a nine-stage compressor, an annular combustion chamber, and a two-stage turbine, By November 1941, the F.2 was was producing 1,800 lb of thrust on the test bench, with flight tests beginning in the spring of 1943 with the engine fitted in to a Avro Lancaster and then into a modified Gloster Meteor DG204/G which had it's first flight on the 13/11/1943. The F.2 was refined into the operational "F.2/4", with a ten-stage compressor, single-stage turbine, with 3,230, 3750, 4000 lb of thrust."

Armstrong Whitworth
_ASX_ Designed in 1942 and built in 1943. The AWX was a _14 stage axial-flow_ engine making around 2,600 lb of thrust. Never used in any production aircraft, how ever it was developed into a turboprop engine delivering 3760 hp, known as the ASP and given the name "Python". This engine was fitted into the Westland "Wyvern"


General-Electric
"_J-35 / TG-180_ The US's _first axial flow_ turbojet, developed from the turboprop TG-100 / TG-31 project, the TG-180 had an output of 2,545lb of thrust, being run for the first time on the 21/4/1944. It would be some time until it was fitted into an aircraft and didn't perform it's first flight until 26/2/1946 when it powered the Republic XP-84 "Thunderjet" on it's first flight."
http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Jets45-Engines.htm

And a small reminder that the Russians used a British jet engine in their MiG 15.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The Allies had no truble shooting LW bombers out of the sky, if they could find any, with the M2HB.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Where is your proof that the J-33 was a 'bad' engine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Metropolitan-Vickers F.2 Freda should not be confused with F.2/4 Beryl, they were different engines. They remained experimental, at no point they were operational, as your article claims. Beryl was tested in 1948 in SR flying boat, but the project was scrapped. Keep in mind that running an engine is not the same with fitting it in a production plane. I have to remaind you that Junkers had an axial jet engine running in '38!, they flew it in '42 on their power alone!, and reached service in '44.

Armstrong Whitworth Python was a postwar engine development, used for Westland Wyvern and considered a failure (both the engine and plane). Westland would have liked to revert the production to piston engine Wyverns, if given the possibility.

J-35 is a post war engines that was in development during the war, just like Jumo 012 and BMW-018 were. J-33 falls in the same category. It was very unreliable, in it's early variants, which lead to a record number of accidents with early P-80 (it was not the only cause of P-80 accidents though). Later ones, like those fitted on F-80C were much more reliable.

Gibbage1
03-11-2004, 02:46 PM
I must disagree with this fully. Without Dr Goddard, the Germans would have never been able to make the V2. They used almosst every one of his inventions to make the weapon. They used his patent for liquid fuel rocket motor. They used his gyro stabilizer. They used his method of rocket direction with fins in the rocket exaust. There were close to 12 patent Dr Goddard made that was used in the V2. But for some reason, they credit the Germans for inventing the rocket. No. Rockets were invented by the Chinese, and liquid fuel rockets and guidence and so much advancement goes to Dr Goddard. Making a great invention into a deadly weapon goes to the Nazi's. Its that simple. The US never thought of Dr Goddard's invention as a weapon till once it was show to be a good weapon.

If there is one thing the US can be accused of is having its leaders being WAY behind the time even if the engineers were way ahead of them. I forgot who, but a US leader said "The jet engine will never equal or supass the output of a prop". The German leaders at the time were both more forward thinking, and desperate for a weapon to win the war. Its ironic that only the US was able to develop a weapon that ended the war.

Im not railing on Germans or there many acheavements. Im just saying people give them credit for things they never invented. But they did perfect things. Just as the US did later on. People here discredit the US for doing after the war for doing what the German did during the war. Taking technology and improving appon it.

Give credit were credit is due. Thats all I am saying.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:

Ash, von Braun was ahead of the entire world. Period. The US took him and damn near everyone fron Peenemunde and used them to make NASA and get us to the moon. lol The V1 was also the start of the US cruise missile program.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BlitzPig_DDT
03-11-2004, 02:53 PM
Wow Ludi, it does sure sound like you're right about Ash.

Ash, where, pray tell, do you think the information needed for Oppenheimer's project came from? Do you know what the "ultra-violet catastrophe" is? Do you know who (specifically) solved it? Do you know how? Do you know what else (along the same lines) he is famous for?

You got rather belligerent there. For no reason either. That's the sign of a closed mind with no real counter argument. You made my case for me in many ways.

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

Gibbage1
03-11-2004, 03:04 PM
Range with 1.71 oz (48.5 gm) Bullet
Modern Air-cooled Version (no differance from WWII M2)
.
Range Effective: 2,200 yards (2,000 m)

Thats WELL within the 1000M. Its unlikley, but NOT IMPOSSIBLE!!!

Also, the Jumo was an EXTREAMLY complicated machine. With complicated machinery, it takes less to damage them. Even a small rock today will foul a jet engine. Let alone a bullete!!!

As for the P-80, I have read MANY referances of P-80's returning from ground assault missions in Korea with MANY MANY bulletes in the jet engine.

Also, the Me-262's engines are much more vulnerable not only by design, but by location. The J-33 was much more compact, and barried in the body of the aircraft. Making it harder to hit. As were the Me-262's engines are on pods, and fill every inch of those pods. If you hit the pods, you hit the engine. Not so with the P-80.

Its ovious that this topic is going nowere. A lot of closed minded post's argueing over things that dont really matter. I have said my peace, and I am leaving this thread. Argue if you want. I dont care.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
Gibbage you're confusing a game with reality. At no point could one flame the engines of Me-262 from 1000m away, neither could flame them with a couple of hits from 300m, like it happens in the game.
If you want to give something in support of your claim that Jumos was more prone to fire than J-33 if hit please do. But don't try to prove it with examples from the game, unless you want to look like a fool of course.


[QUOTE]
Yes the He-162 is a better fighter, but I somehow doubt it would have been that good if it was in service. From what I remember hearing, it was quite a hand full to fly! Definitly not for inexperanced pilots, and the Nazi's intended to put KIDS in these things! Its got such short stubby wings, a high COG, and a very short frame. Yet it turns like a bat, and is quite stable. WTF? It goes against the basics of aerodynamics. Fortunatly it has little ammo and not the best in firepower. If it had Mk-108's, wow. That would be inside! Im guessing that two Mk-108's in that little thing would give the pilot whiplash at the least. I dont even know how Me-163 pilots sirvived firing those things off. Must have rattled them good.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ASH at S-MART
03-11-2004, 03:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I must disagree with this fully. Without Dr Goddard,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's the gentalmans name I could not remember!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
the Germans would have never been able to make the V2. They used almosst every one of his inventions to make the weapon. They used his patent for liquid fuel rocket motor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
They used his gyro stabilizer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>TRUE!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
They used his method of rocket direction with fins in the rocket exaust.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The thrust paddles! Yes, the V2 made use of that big time!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
There were close to 12 patent Dr Goddard made that was used in the V2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>WOW! 12 huh? I didnt know that!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
But for some reason, they credit the Germans for inventing the rocket. No. Rockets were invented by the Chinese, and liquid fuel rockets and guidence and so much advancement goes to Dr Goddard.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exctally! I dont know where this nazi tech worshop comes from.. Or how it got started.. But it is ramped!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Making a great invention into a deadly weapon goes to the Nazi's. Its that simple.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! TRUE! Never thought about it that way.. Maybe that is why the German get the credit for things? Truing something into a weapon make it more cool? Emmmm no, because if that was true they would be in aww of the USA taking the atom spliting thing and making a weapon out of it.. So.. what is it? Why do Germans get credit for things? I think it might be as simple as this.. Germany (ie Hitler) knew years in advance they planed to stab eveyone in the back and goto war.. Thus Germany (Hitler) ramped up their RnD a good 7 years before eveyone else in the world did.. Funny thing is, once the war started, it only took about 3 years (half the time) to not only close the 7 year gap, but surpase Germany in just about ever USEFUL (ie not V2s) Aspect of war machines

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The US never thought of Dr Goddard's invention as a weapon till once it was show to be a good weapon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually it was more of we realised it had potential.. but without a way to guide it.. it would be useless as a weapon agiants a target.. In that the odds were you were not going to get near the intended target.. The V1 and V2 were terror weapons.. nothing more!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
If there is one thing the US can be accused of is having its leaders being WAY behind the time even if the engineers were way ahead of them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is true of just about every country.. The peacful ones that is.. The ones that plan on going to war while signing agreements not to attack are the so called *smart* ones... Smart in that they know what they are truly up to.. Now some might call that smart.. I have another name for it.. Which I will not bother to post! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I forgot who, but a US leader said "The jet engine will never equal or supass the output of a prop".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Every country has it's bone heads.. Much like some guy in Germany said there would never be any allied fighters over Germany! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The German leaders at the time were both more forward thinking, and desperate for a weapon to win the war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Only thing forward about it is they KNEW they were going to start the war that they were telling everyone else they were not going to start

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Its ironic that only the US was able to develop a weapon that ended the war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What is ironic is some think that getting a rocket off the ground is in any way equal to spliting the atom and making a weapon out of it... Not even close in comparsion!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Im not railing on Germans or there many acheavements. Im just saying people give them credit for things they never invented.[/QUTOE]Same Here!


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gibbage1:
But they did perfect things. Just as the US did later on. People here discredit the US for doing after the war for doing what the German did during the war. Taking technology and improving appon it.

Give credit were credit is due. Thats all I am saying.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally!

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

Koohullin
03-11-2004, 03:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
DDT come on, ignore this troll, ASH_SMART is good ole Tagert, he was banned a month ago.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have been told that you are Huckebein, who was also banned.


The engine post went over your head. As has been stated, the Allies went the practical route, while the Nazis went for the impractical 'glitter' route.

What did you have trouble comprehending? "The F.2 was refined into the "F.2/4", with a ten-stage compressor, single-stage turbine", just like the 004A was refined to the 004B.

Yes, a German engine that could barely run under its own power. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Stop all this parroting and produce some proof that the J-33 was a 'bad' engine.

Bewolf
03-11-2004, 03:27 PM
Next thing you guys deny is that Benz didn´t invent the car and Otto not the modern engine http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Seriously, this often observed attitude of "america invented all the good things but all the others just used already developed stuff" is annoying.

Credit to those who made things working. Else i´ll start about where the Hamburgers come from. Good appetite.

Bewolf

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

cuski
03-11-2004, 03:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Give credit were credit is due. Thats all I am saying.

Gib
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


... Fine, let's give credit then, shall we? How about Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, who started developing basic theory of rocket propulsion as early as 1895 (Goddard was about what? 13 years old?)?

ASH at S-MART
03-11-2004, 03:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cuski:
... Fine, let's give credit then, shall we? How about Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, who started developing basic theory of rocket propulsion as early as 1895 (Goddard was about what? 13 years old?)?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! And the Italians developed noodles for spagatie! NOT! China! Like Rockets.. Everything started in China!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

Gibbage1
03-11-2004, 04:48 PM
I know I said I would not post in this thread again, but you so missed the point of my post.

I did not claim American's invented rockets!!!!! I never said "Americans invented all things good". I was just pointing out that the Germans did NOT invent rockets. Far from it. But people credit it to them. Why? You tell me.

Also, there is a BIG differant between theory and a working rocket Cuski. Credit goes to the man who made it work, and Goddard is that man. Also rocket propulsion has been more then a therie for the Chinese since around 1150, but your trying to give Konstantin credit in 1895?

As for Otto, there was working internal combustion chamber engines 100 years before Otto, but everyone gives him credit. Why? Again. You tell me. He did not INVENT it, nor did he come up with the concept. To me, Invention is defined by both a viable concept and a working model. Not someone who made something better, as Otto did, and the Germans did with the rocket V2.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bewolf:
Next thing you guys deny is that Benz didn´t invent the car and Otto not the modern engine http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Seriously, this often observed attitude of "america invented all the good things but all the others just used already developed stuff" is annoying.

Credit to those who made things working. Else i´ll start about where the Hamburgers come from. Good appetite.

Bewolf

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BlitzPig_DDT
03-11-2004, 04:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
To me, Invention is defined by both a viable concept and a working model. Not someone who made something better, as Otto did, and the Germans did with the rocket V2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So who invented the steam engine then? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

SkyChimp
03-11-2004, 05:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
DDT come on, ignore this troll, ASH_SMART is good ole Tagert, he was banned a month ago.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

You're Huck, and you were banned a month ago, too!

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Gibbage1
03-11-2004, 05:07 PM
Thomas Savery was an English military engineer and inventor who in 1698, patented the first crude steam engine, based on Denis Papin's "Digester" (pressure cooker) of 1679. Savery had been working on the problem of pumping water out of coal mines. His machine consisted of a closed vessel filled with water into which steam under pressure was introduced. This forced the water upwards and out of the mine shaft. Then a cold water sprinkler was used to condense the steam. This created a vacuum which sucked more water out of the mine shaft through a bottom valve. Savery later worked with Thomas Newcomen on the atmospheric steam engine. Among Savery's other inventions was an odometer for ships, a device that measured distance traveled.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
To me, Invention is defined by both a viable concept and a working model. Not someone who made something better, as Otto did, and the Germans did with the rocket V2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So who invented the steam engine then? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com&lt;HR&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt; (http://www.blitzpigs.com<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>)

SkyChimp
03-11-2004, 05:08 PM
Hey DDT, before giving all the credit to the Germans for their rocket technology, it might be worthwhile to see what components of the V-2 were invented and developed in the US by Robert Goddard:

First explored mathematically the practicality of using rocket propulsion to reach high & altitudes and even the moon (1912);

First proved, by actual static test, that a rocket will work in a vacuum, that it needs no air to push against;
First developed and shot a liquid fuel rocket, March 16,1926;

First shot a scientific payload (barometer and camera) in a rocket flight (1929, Auburn, Massachusetts);

First used vanes in the rocket motor blast for guidance (1932, New Mexico);

First developed gyro control apparatus for rocket flight (1932, New Mexico);

First received U.S. patent in idea of multi-stage rocket (1914);

First developed pumps suitable for rocket fuels;

First launched successfully a rocket with a motor pivoted on gimbals under the influence of a & gyro mechanism (1937).

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Bewolf
03-11-2004, 05:35 PM
Read my post.

I said "Credit to those, who made things work".
Almost every invention is based on basic knowledge pursued by others already. It's about the ability to combine these findings with new ideas to create something new.
Fact is, the Germans were the first ones pursuing the idea of rockets to a finished and working device produced in huge numbers. Just to stay with this example.

BTW Gibbage, i wasn´t refering to your post in particular, but in a more general sense. Amercians seem to have some real problems in giving Credits to others. I have seens lots of you guys bragging about great american inventions. Once i even read here from one of you guys "Yeah, we invented the car". The same guy didn´t know France and Germany shared a border. This lack of education paired with some sort of superiourity complex really makes for interesting results. No offense, but this attitude gets to my nervers slowly.

Bewolf

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

SkyChimp
03-11-2004, 05:35 PM
Some people liked the He-162, others did not. But almost all agreed that the plane rolled fast, but that it was not easy to fly:

Nevertheless, the production aircraft were still very hot to handle and certainly not recommended for novice pilots. Even experienced pilots were at a disadvantage because they had to learn to use the He-162's controls in smooth, flowing movements, whereas they had been able to handle the controls more roughly when manuevering their piston engined fighters. The He-162 was to remain aerodynamically unstable, despite the aforementioned modifications, and its critical mach number was rather low at .75. These deficiencies arose chiefly from interference between the engine fairing and fuselage and between the wing and fuselage, at which points considerable displacement of the was caused by high local air velocities.
German Aircraft Of The Second World War Smith and Kay, page 161



Dipl.-Ing Heinrich Beauvais, Rechlin Test Pilot said:

The He-162 gave few troubles in the hands of a somewhat experienced pilot. However, due to its high wing loading and quirks with the engine it could also be rather poisonous. Using the People's Fighter with Hitler Youth at the controls was nonsense. Even experienced pilots had problems with it.

also

Eric Brown, a British test pilot with many years of experience came to similar conclusions. His following comments were particularly notable: "no people's fighter; quite good for sighting; quite good roll characterisitics."
The Histroy Of German Aviation: The First Jet Aircraft Wolfgang Wagner, page 80

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

SkyChimp
03-11-2004, 05:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
J-35 is a post war engines that was in development during the war, just like Jumo 012 and BMW-018 were. J-33 falls in the same category. It was very unreliable, in it's early variants, which lead to a record number of accidents with early P-80 (it was not the only cause of P-80 accidents though). Later ones, like those fitted on F-80C were much more reliable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The vast majority of P-80 crashes were due to pilot error, not malfunction. Sorry.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Gibbage1
03-11-2004, 05:57 PM
The reason I singled your post out is you are very much generalizing Americans. The same could be said for any country!!! THATS MY POINT!!! Every country wants to have credit for inventing things. I myself have ALWAYS been taught that Americans invented powered flight. I have grown up with this belief, and its been grilled into me for 26 years!!!! BUT!!! I heard someone here that siad it was not true, and someone did acheave powered flight before the Wright Brothers. I did some research and found out that yes, its true. Not much proof that its true, but I accepted it. Now I say that Americans invented powered controled flight because the first flight was anything BUT controled.

But why is it people cant accept the fact that Germans did NOT invent the rockets? Why do people try so hard to discredit Americans and the inventions we DO have? Why is it that a lot of posters here on the Ubi forum go out of there way to put American's down and give Germans credit for everything? The jet, the rocket, the internal combustion chamer , STEALTH just to name a few!!! I am not saing that America is responsable for everything, I am just saying that we deserve credit when credit is due.

PLUS!!! People use the US taking V2's to study as PROOF that Germans invented rockets. They say NASA was a German invention in this very thread!!! BUT!! Its Dr Goddard's work that started it all, and NOBODY EVER SAYS THAT BUT A FEW AMERICANS!!! Then when us few point out this CRITICAL, BUT IGNORED PART OF HISTORY, we get pegged for being nationalistic and "typicall American, trying to take credit for everything". No. We are just trying to take the credit we deserve. Dr Goddard pioneered modern rockets, and the Germans used that technology and called it there own. The people who say the Germans invented rockets are being more nationalistic then any American's on this forum, and they may not even be German!

Just take things with an open mind, and do a little research when some says something. A man who does not listen, learns nothing.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bewolf:
Read my post..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage1
03-11-2004, 05:59 PM
I think they are talking about early P-80 crashes like the one that killed Richard Bong. At first it was said it was an engine failure. Later it was proven to be a gas cap failure. The gas cap behond the canopy popped off on takeoff, spilling jet fuel all over the engine.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:

The vast majority of P-80 crashes were due to pilot error, not malfunction. Sorry.

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage1
03-11-2004, 06:01 PM
Ya. I remember reading things like this, but in IL2 its very easy to handle and forgiving. I voice my openion and get jumped all over. Im just saying it should be more difficult to handle then what is in the game. I did not say nurf the hole damn thing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Some people liked the He-162, others did not. But almost all agreed that the plane rolled fast, but that it was not easy to fly:

_Nevertheless, the production aircraft were still very hot to handle and certainly not recommended for novice pilots. Even experienced pilots were at a disadvantage because they had to learn to use the He-162's controls in smooth, flowing movements, whereas they had been able to handle the controls more roughly when manuevering their piston engined fighters. The He-162 was to remain aerodynamically unstable, despite the aforementioned modifications, and its critical mach number was rather low at .75. These deficiencies arose chiefly from interference between the engine fairing and fuselage and between the wing and fuselage, at which points considerable displacement of the was caused by high local air velocities._
_German Aircraft Of The Second World War_ Smith and Kay, page 161



Dipl.-Ing Heinrich Beauvais, Rechlin Test Pilot said:

_The He-162 gave few troubles in the hands of a somewhat experienced pilot. However, due to its high wing loading and quirks with the engine it could also be rather poisonous. Using the People's Fighter with Hitler Youth at the controls was nonsense. Even experienced pilots had problems with it._

also

_Eric Brown, a British test pilot with many years of experience came to similar conclusions. His following comments were particularly notable: "no people's fighter; quite good for sighting; quite good roll characterisitics."_
_The Histroy Of German Aviation: The First Jet Aircraft_ Wolfgang Wagner, page 80

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SkyChimp
03-11-2004, 06:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bewolf:
Read my post.

I said "Credit to those, who made things work".
Almost every invention is based on basic knowledge pursued by others already. It's about the ability to combine these findings with new ideas to create something new.
Fact is, the Germans were the first ones pursuing the idea of rockets to a finished and working device produced in huge numbers. Just to stay with this example.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd agree with this. The Germans were very good and putting the puzzle pieces together to create a new product.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

BlitzPig_DDT
03-11-2004, 06:10 PM
Beowulf makes an excellent point.

Ever wonder why we praise Watt and not Newcomen? Or for that matter, why we don't praise the Greeks for the same thing (steam engine)? Because the Greek thing was just a demonstration of principle, Newcomen's didn't work reliably for more than a few minutes at best, and it wasn't until Watt that it all came together.

There is a growing trend of German haters that wish to belittle and minimize all of Germany's contributions to technology and knowledge.

Several are in this thread. It's ridiculous.

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

TooCooL34
03-11-2004, 06:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
I'd agree with this. The Germans were very good and putting the puzzle pieces together to create a new product.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They really got war gene. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
Not offence, compliment, actually. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

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

=815=TooCooL34 in =815=Squad, South Korea

=815= FB Dedicated Server is coming soon. (with AEP Dedicated Server)
100Mb IDC line, P4 2.8G server.
Full real but limited friendly icon, minimap path.
You can expect something, since I run the server myself. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Electric.Wizard
03-11-2004, 06:18 PM
*cough* konstantin tsjolkovski *cough*

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blrocketTsiolkovsky.htm

SkyChimp
03-11-2004, 06:19 PM
Well DDT, it has a lot less to do with hating Gemany than having the balls to give credit where credit is due, and not get duped by popular history.

Even Goddard himself comments on German rocket science and the notion that it was invented in Germany:

CLARK UNIVERSITY
WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS
May 5, 1926

Dr. C. G. Abbot, Assistant Secretary
Smithsonian Institution
Washington D.C.

Dear Dr. Abbot:

This report is an outline of the progress on the rocket work that has been made to date. I am sending vouchers under separate cover. ...

I should be glad to come to Washington, if you so desire, to make clear any matters connected with the work, and discuss plans for the development of a rocket to reach great altitudes. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if no public statement, such as recently suggested by Acting Secretary Wetmore of the Institution, were made before I had opportunity to supply such details as it may seem desirable to include. My reason is that this rocket work is being made almost a national issue in Germany, a novel having been written, playing upon race feeling, in which Germany is urged to support the development of a German liquid-propelled rocket, which, the readers are given to understand, is a German idea. Nearly every day, I am in receipt of requests from Germany for information and details.


Now, DDT, you can try and perpetuate the popular myth that all rocket achievement is strictly German, but history shows otherwise.

In fact, it was Germany that based much of their work on Goddard's earlier work. The German Rocket Society was not formed in Germany until 1927 and the German army did not start to explore rocketry until 1931.

I think you need to do a little research on Goddard's accomplishments before labelling anyone that disagrees that rocket-science is solely German as a "Germany Hater."

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

BlitzPig_DDT
03-11-2004, 06:25 PM
Case in point. Thank you chimp.

You're tone, and post content show that you don't put emphasis on understanding, or the truth. You would rather attack anyone who doesn't share your teutonic loathing. I won't be the least bit surprised if you try to deny it and dress it up again, as you just did. But you've already proven the point.

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

Koohullin
03-11-2004, 06:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:

There is a growing trend of German haters that wish to belittle and minimize all of Germany's contributions to technology and knowledge.

Several are in this thread. It's ridiculous.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are several in this thread, and other threads, who glorify the Nazi master race.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Any attempt to debunk this myth of the master race are then labeled German haters.

How pathetic. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

SkyChimp
03-11-2004, 06:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Case in point. Thank you chimp.

You're tone, and post content show that you don't put emphasis on understanding, or the truth. You would rather attack anyone who doesn't share your teutonic loathing. I won't be the least bit surprised if you try to deny it and dress it up again, as you just did. But you've already proven the point.

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm putting an emphasis on truth, DDT. You are the one that choose not to do any research and just believe blindly that all rocket science was developed in Germany.

What I've learned about you in the past is that you'd rather continue to look silly than admit you are wrong. Which you are.

Again, have the balls to give credit where credit is due.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

SkyChimp
03-11-2004, 06:31 PM
While the U.S. military was indifferent at best to Goddard's research, Germany was quite interested in using rockets at weapons. Goddard didn't aid the Germans personally, but his many patents were available for anyone to see. It was no surprise then, that Germany's V-2 rockets, which rained down on London later in the war, used many of the principles Goddard had developed.

When a captured German scientist was asked about the development of the V-2, he reportedly said, "Why don't you ask your own Dr. Goddard? He knows better than any of us."


http://www.eworcester.com/extra/goddard/


Oh no, that can't be true. Only a "Germany Hater" would believe that.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

BlitzPig_DDT
03-11-2004, 06:32 PM
lol

There you go again with pointless, and unecessary 'tude. You'd much rather attack me. You're transparent dude.

Let me know when you go on a campaign to erase Watt's name in favor of Newcomen. lol

Just more of the same spin from you. You people haven't changed a bit. lol

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

Bewolf
03-11-2004, 06:34 PM
Gosh.

No sense to go on here. It all goes in circles.

This thread opens my eyes only in one thing.
Objectivity in discussions is a dream in a world of different nations.
And no, i don't exclude myself.
Good night.

Bewolf

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

SkyChimp
03-11-2004, 06:36 PM
Well, DDT. Believe what you want. You're good at taking the easy way out. Better to just believe what you grown to know than actually checking things out for yourself.

You're the perfect example of the type that perpetuates myth. Nevermind facts, they just get in the way, huh?

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

SkyChimp
03-11-2004, 06:39 PM
When some V-2s finally made their way to the U.S. and Goddard had a chance to autopsy one, he instantly recognized his own handiwork. "Isn't this your rocket?" an assistant asked as they poked around its innards. "It seems to be," Goddard replied flatly.

http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/goddard03.html

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

BlitzPig_DDT
03-11-2004, 06:49 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I love it. Such hated and attitude. Such denial and spin. Are you going into politics at any point? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You see chimp, you glossed over the point so many times, and broke out with the attacks on me so quickly, you've demonstrated that it's totally pointless to do anything other than laugh at you. Altough the humor is appreciated. be sure. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

SkyChimp
03-11-2004, 06:59 PM
Go on DDT, no more time to waste with the likes of you. Even Huck is more challenging. I'll just chock up your failure, or refusal, to offer any fact to rebut me as the lack thereof.

It was fun, while you lasted.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Gibbage1
03-11-2004, 07:01 PM
All we are doing is posting the truth. Your turning this into an anti-german thing. Its not. Its just giving credit, and setting some things strait.

But here is a simple question. Do you think that the Germans invented rockets, or liquid fuel rockets? If so, then your ignoring history, and facts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
lol

There you go again with pointless, and unecessary 'tude. You'd much rather attack me. You're transparent dude.

Let me know when you go on a campaign to erase Watt's name in favor of Newcomen. lol

Just more of the same spin from you. You people haven't changed a bit. lol

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blottogg
03-11-2004, 07:15 PM
DDT, SkyChimp seems to be pointing out facts, to which you reply with flame-bait. If you've got a point, make it. If you disagree with what SkyChimp has posted, refute it with argument, not pabulum. If you have no further information to add, move on, there's nothing to see here.

Getting back to the thread topic, while I haven't tested either the Jumo 004 nor the J-33 for ballistic trauma, I do have some light to shed. The centrifugal compressor of the J-33 was a single chunk of metal while the axial compressor of the Jumo consisted of LOTS of thin individual blades and stator vanes. The slightly more modern equivalent of the J-33 is the J-69 of the T-37 (also a single centrifugal compressor and single axial turbine stage.) This is an engine the maintenance guys would clean with walnut shells down the intake of the running engine. Don't try that trick with an axial flow engine. Meanwhile the Jumo is similar in general layout to the J-85 of the T-38, an engine I've been able to see daylight through after an encounter with a sparrow (the bird, not the missile.) Of course the J-85 has the advantage of much more robust build materials than the Jumo.

Axial flow engines were the way to go, since they offered more room for growth and better packaging. Centrifugal flow engines were limited in growth potential, but they could take some abuse, at least in the compressor section. Both were equally vulnerable in the turbine section. Ludi/Huck has a good point about fuel control, though I can't find any info on U.S. inferiority in injector technology yet. All early jets had pretty primative fuel control though, which was made worse by relatively low temperature alloys. If the metal can't take much heat, you've got that much less room for a fuel-flow "oops".

As to where the U.S. program for both ballistic and cruise missiles got started after WWII, both owe a large part of their early experience to captured German hardware. We launched a bunch of V-1's off deserts, beaches and subs (and crashed most of those too), as well as a bunch of V-2's (crashed a bunch of those, as well.) Goddard was a pioneer in the field, but the Germans made their own contributions. Not the least of these was just to take the liquid fueled rocket seriously, something the U.S. for the most part did not, at least not until after the war.

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

DaBallz
03-11-2004, 07:24 PM
Goddard was most definately first with liquid fueled rockets.
I remember where Wherner Von Braun gave Goddard credit!
I just wish I could give you a source.
What put Germany ahead was goverment backing.
Goddard never got nearly enough money to get
the job done.

That Germany was ahead in 1945 is fact, plain ans simple.

That Goddard was first is also FACT, plain and simple.

Next the Luftwhiners will claim a German was the
first to fly a heavier than air powered flying
machine (airplane). Perhaps the Wrights were really
named 'VonWright' and America stole their true
heritage as war reperations after WWI....

My head hurts.

Da...

Gibbage1
03-11-2004, 07:26 PM
Thanks for your insights Blottogg.

Nobody ever mentions the US contrabution too guided missiles. US had the first radar self-guided missile. The Bat Bomb. It was used in WWII against bridges and boats with great success. This was far more accurate then the V2, and systems like that are being used today, were the V2's non-guided system was thrown own the door shortly after WWII.

Or how about the Proximity fuse 5" shell? Developed by the US and used with GREAT success in the Pacific and in Britian in shootind down V1's. It did such a great job defending the shores of London with an 80% kill ratio that Germany gave up using V1's on London and went for another target (some port). US quickly moved the proxy fuse 5" shells there and scored a 92% kill ratio to incomming V1's.

These two US weapons were a LOT more effective then the V1 and V2, but nobody gives the US any credit. Why? You tell me.

Koohullin
03-11-2004, 07:36 PM
The main reason Gibbage was the launch areas had been over-run by ground troops. The LW then used He 111's to air launch them and at night.

mortoma
03-11-2004, 07:36 PM
I agree with Gibbages posts in here where he credits Goddard for rocketry. It is well known that Werner Von Braun and other Germans studied very closely all that Goddard did. Without Goddard's work, they would not have achieved
nearly so much during the war in the form of the V-2. It probably would have never got off the ground, or even the drawing board.

Koohullin
03-11-2004, 07:38 PM
mortoma, you are a German hater.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

SkyChimp
03-11-2004, 07:39 PM
And nevermind the autopilot, the hydraulic variable pitch propellor, stressed skin monoque construction,...

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Gibbage1
03-11-2004, 07:41 PM
They changed targets before we over ran the facility's. If I remember, only a few were air-launched from He-111's were tousands of V1's were intercepted over the port. Can someone clerify this? I recently did a bit of research on the proxi shell and many souces said the Germans changed targets because no V1's were getting through due to the defenses. They changed targets and soon after that the V1 facilities were overrun.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Koohullin:
The main reason Gibbage was the launch areas had been over-run by ground troops. The LW then used He 111's to air launch them and at night.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blottogg
03-11-2004, 07:51 PM
Can't tell ya Gibb. Every country's got smart people who often don't get credit for their work for a variety of reasons. Sometimes they do it to themselves. The Wright's could have been on the cusp of aeronautical development, but instead started thinking like lawyers, letting pioneers in Europe take the lead, with Glenn Curtis left to represent the U.S. (when he wasn't being assaulted by the Wright's in court.) The Brits came up with several brilliant, practical solutions to modern carrier aviation, and then got priced out of the market. Now people see a carrier and think "U.S.S. Nimitz", most not knowing that the steam catapult, angled deck and mirrored landing system all came from the Brits.

Apollo didn't get to the moon with German Cliff's Notes. German hardware and experience certainly gave us a jump-start, but a lot of original creative thinking from Americans went into the program as well. We weren't the only one's using the German's experience and knowledge, either. In fact, a weapon suspiciously similar in concept to the V-2 is still a major ballistic missile defense bogey... its called SCUD.

Finally, for all the 262 fans with their noses out of joint about the YP-80, remember, the 262 was designed, flown and fought in combat well before the P-80. It's an apples and oranges comparison. Different aircraft with different missions developed in different timeframes with different materials available. The only constant in aviation is change. The P-80 was at a distinct disadvantage only five years later.

Ludi/Huck does make a good point about the 6x.50's though. While adequate for WWII fighter combat, by Korea the combination was recognized as inadequate given the reduced fire times, greater distances and higher speeds of jet combat. A couple of high velocity, high rate of fire cannons for a jet fighter would have been a good armament idea. Points to Heinkel.

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

edit - corrected repetition

Koohullin
03-11-2004, 08:07 PM
The LW air launch enough at night that the Brits set up AWACs to intercept the Heinkels.

The main launch area was the Pas de Calais.

Germany launched its new weapon from Pas-de-Calais on the northern coast of France, on 12th June, 1944. Germany fired 9,521 V-I bombs on southern England. Of these 4,621 were destroyed by anti-aircraft fire or by fighters.

Between June and mid-August 1944, the handful of Tempests shot down 638 flying bombs. (One Tempest pilot, Joseph Berry, downed fifty-nine V1s, another 44, and Wing Commander Beaumont himself destroyed 31.) Next most successful was the Mosquito (428), Spitfire XIV (303), and Mustang, (232). All other types combined added 158.

The front line was on the Somme R. and with a bulge towards Brussels Sept 3. The front line was between Ostend and Zeebrugge by Sept. 15, which is 60 miles up the coast from Calais.

The port was Antwerp.

Copperhead310th
03-11-2004, 08:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Thanks for your insights Blottogg.

Nobody ever mentions the US contrabution too guided missiles. US had the first radar self-guided missile. The Bat Bomb. It was used in WWII against bridges and boats with great success. This was far more accurate then the V2, and systems like that are being used today, were the V2's non-guided system was thrown own the door shortly after WWII.

Or how about the Proximity fuse 5" shell? Developed by the US and used with GREAT success in the Pacific and in Britian in shootind down V1's. It did such a great job defending the shores of London with an 80% kill ratio that Germany gave up using V1's on London and went for another target (some port). US quickly moved the proxy fuse 5" shells there and scored a 92% kill ratio to incomming V1's.

These two US weapons were a LOT more effective then the V1 and V2, but nobody gives the US any credit. Why? You tell me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

simple.
the reason the Bat bomb was such a sucess is because we (the US ) Had the edge in electronics technology. Germans had rockets.

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron)

Gibbage1
03-11-2004, 10:02 PM
I had never known that the US had radar guided missiles in WWII that were actually used. To me, thats a much bigger technological advance that a dumb balistic rocket that did nothing but terrorize civilians and had little military significance. The V1 was interesting, but was quickly religated to a slight annoyance by another very advanced weapon, the Proxy shell. Again, I had never known the US had this! Everyone touts German acheavements in WWII so much, that everyone else gets overshadowd. And then when the US tries to get a little reccognition, we are being "Nationalistic" and a German hater. Why is it that the German fans can beat there chest all day long about how great they were, but the US cant? Thats the biggest mystery to me. Its a total double standard here, and its painfully ovious.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Thanks for your insights Blottogg.

Nobody ever mentions the US contrabution too guided missiles. US had the first radar self-guided missile. The Bat Bomb. It was used in WWII against bridges and boats with great success. This was far more accurate then the V2, and systems like that are being used today, were the V2's non-guided system was thrown own the door shortly after WWII.

Or how about the Proximity fuse 5" shell? Developed by the US and used with GREAT success in the Pacific and in Britian in shootind down V1's. It did such a great job defending the shores of London with an 80% kill ratio that Germany gave up using V1's on London and went for another target (some port). US quickly moved the proxy fuse 5" shells there and scored a 92% kill ratio to incomming V1's.

These two US weapons were a LOT more effective then the V1 and V2, but nobody gives the US any credit. Why? You tell me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

simple.
the reason the Bat bomb was such a sucess is because we (the US ) Had the edge in electronics technology. Germans had rockets.

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
_http://www.members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron
_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>